The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Mahoney moved resolution 33:

That in the opinion of this House, since every member of provincial Parliament must have a real opportunity to effectively impact on proposed laws and the budget, in order to ensure governing parties remain sensitive to all regions of the province, the government of Ontario should introduce reforms to the laws governing the Legislature to ensure that (a) the defeat of a government bill will not mean the automatic defeat of the government, so that individual members would have more leverage on a government; (b) governments would only be defeated in the Legislature on express votes of confidence or non-confidence; and (c) the budgetary process would be dramatically opened up to greater public input before decisions are finalized, and to move most of the budget-making process out from behind closed doors.

Mr Mahoney: I am very pleased to move ballot item 47 and to talk to members of this House and to the public in general about reforms I believe should take place in our parliamentary system.

We all hear from our constituents on a regular basis that they are unhappy with the process they view taking place in this House and in government in general. There is a general malaise in the community, a sense that legislators are not allowed the freedom to perform their duties as perhaps they would see fit. The whole issue of party discipline is coming under a lot of discussion.

Much of this, members will realize, comes out of movements such as the Reform Party, and we hear extremist views calling for things like recall of members of Parliament and members of the Legislature. I am sure members opposite are delighted that a recall procedure is not in place, otherwise there might be a number of current members who would be going back to the polls as a result of the past 15 months in government. Yes, the member for Lincoln can wave goodbye. I am sure he would be leaving, as a matter of fact.

I have not gone that far in this resolution, to suggest that recall is indeed a proper process, because frankly I do not think it is in a system where people are elected in a three-party system. If we were to have recall, I am sure virtually every one of us would face such a motion from the opponents in our ridings.

It does not go that far. It deals, in a very pragmatic sense, with the workings of the government in relation to an MPP. We all know, and I am sure the members opposite would understand from their experience in their first 15 months in office, that the way the system works is that a minister -- or a bureaucrat, in most cases -- will come up with a piece of legislation or a particular bill of some type to introduce. If you are lucky, they will take it into your caucus and you will get an opportunity for input. If you do not have that opportunity, they will simply come forward and tell you what they are doing and then it becomes the job of the whip -- and I see the chief government whip is here this morning -- to get all members whipped into shape so that they come in and vote en masse. So far the record is quite impeccable. Members have been trained quite well to simply put up their hands or stand at attention. We understand that under party discipline that is basically how the system is worked.

I am attempting to put forward something in a non-partisan and non-controversial sense that perhaps locally elected MPPs can grasp as a rallying point. It is very important to understand that this is not to throw some kind of confrontational aspect forward. Let's face it, when a member arrives at Queen's Park and gets on a committee, he or she is told, "Today in committee we are going to deal with the estimates for the Ministry of Community and Social Services." The immediate reaction is, "Estimates means that we are going to deal with the next budget period and what they estimate they will spend." In reality, they wind up dealing with last year's budget. How in the world they ever put the name "estimates" on last year's budget has always been a puzzlement to me.

Members are not really having an impact on the budget and neither are members of the opposition, because the decisions have already been made. Oh, sure, members can put forward suggestions asking that they investigate why this was done or why that was done. My resolution says we should have a process where members of provincial Parliament clearly have an opportunity to examine proposals, true estimates of a particular ministry, where we could perhaps hold some town hall meetings and take those proposals to the people in our community.

Some have said: "You know, you've just got to understand that governments have to make tough decisions and, boy, if we are going to leave it to the whim of the individual member or the opinions of the people out there, a government would never get anything done. Sometimes you've got to bite the bullet and make these tough decisions."

I believe we must change the process to allow for more public input into the budget, the legislative process and new bills and to allow members to speak on behalf of their constituents. We know we are not always going to agree. Who can get a consensus on every issue in a particular constituency? It is very difficult. We will always have, particularly in partisan politics, somebody on one side of the issue and somebody on the other.

1010

We have no opportunity now, as members of this House, to even try to build a consensus. Either we are given the budget after it has been developed totally in secret without having any chance for input or we are given legislation and government members are told to carry the can. It does not matter whether they agree with it.

Let's take a look at the committee process. The bills that create the most publicity in our communities, bills like Sunday shopping or public auto insurance, are issues that create a tremendous furore. What does a government do? Governments are all the same in this regard: They draft a piece of legislation and refer it to a legislative committee.

The government members on one side are told: "You will support this bill. Your job is to get it through the committee with as few amendments as possible and back into the Legislature for second, third or final reading and royal assent." The opposition members on the other side of the table are told: "You should oppose this bill. It is your responsibility to put forward amendments, to find loopholes, to embarrass the government if that is doable -- to do all those things. Your job is not to allow that bill to go back to the House too quickly." Automatically we have confrontation.

I remember sitting in a committee hearing in Kingston on rent control, Bill 121. The bickering in the committee was so terrible that somebody in the audience shouted out, "Now, children." It really struck home a point, because that is exactly how the committee was acting, like a group of children.

Unless we change the rules around here and put in a system that says you as government, or we as government when we get a chance to change the particular roles, have identified a problem. Let's take Sunday shopping. We have identified this problem. Some people want to shop, some do not. Some people want to work, some do not. Business thinks it is good, labour thinks it is bad. Let's refer this to an all-party committee and ask the committee to write a report, bring it back into the Legislature and report to the minister so the minister could take the views of the public and the individual MPPs in all three parties and write the legislation.

It would not take one day longer. We would still have committee hearings. It would eliminate the confrontation we experience at all levels of parliamentary democracy. It would allow for each MPP to voice his or her concerns over a particular bill. It would allow for members of the public to have real input. Then the bill could be written and introduced back into this place for the kind of particularly partisan debate that takes place and perhaps belongs in this House. I call it inverse legislation. You simply take the legislative process, flip it upside down and say, "We're really going to go out and try to listen to the people."

This resolution says, "in order to ensure governing parties remain sensitive to all regions of the province," and to ensure that MPPs have "a real opportunity to effectively impact on proposed laws and the budget." We can do this kind of thing with the budgetary process. We should let MPPs talk about next year's budget. Let's start in the summer of the preceding year. Let's get the ministries' budgetary process out and have the staff come in. We have committee hearings through the summer, let's assign the standing committee on finance and economic affairs the task of going over what it is going to do next year. It does not mean the government is required to do what the committee says, but it clearly means that MPPs can say: "We don't think you should do this or that in your budget. We don't think you should follow this or that approach in your legislative agenda. Our committee is recommending that you do the following things." What a refreshing change that would be. What a refreshing change to actually allow members of this House an opportunity for openness.

Let's understand that I clearly add the caveat, to protect the sensitivity of any government, that it will not necessarily mean the defeat of the government. If a member votes against a government bill, it does not mean the defeat of the government; that can only happen on express votes of confidence or non-confidence.

In my remaining 10 seconds, let me ask the ladies and gentlemen for their support of this resolution. Let me suggest to them in an open, friendly, non-partisan way that we need to do reforms in this place and this would be a good place to begin.

Mr McLean: I welcome this opportunity to make a few brief comments on this resolution from my colleague the member for Mississauga West. I support this resolution in principle because it is fundamental to the democratic process that each individual member of this House, whether sitting on the government side or the opposition benches, has an opportunity to participate in the policy decisions of the Legislature. The reforms called for by this resolution would make the contribution of all members more meaningful and better equip us to reflect the wishes and the views of our constituents. That is what it is all about, to bring the views of our constituents here and to be able to make sure that, when legislation is being dealt with, those views are part of that legislation.

I think we all agree that the most controversial issues, such as the April 1991 budget with its original $10-billion deficit or the proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act that will destroy the unique partnership between labour and business, are dealt with in a partisan manner. The opposition lines up on one side against the government backbenchers. Even though the government members may be opposed to these controversial measures, government members are told to support these measures because the defeat of a government bill will mean the defeat of the government. This government has even gone far enough that when one member voted agin tobacco tax in his riding, he was fired as chairman of the committee, which is totally unacceptable in this day and age.

I believe this resolution will result in some cross-party, issues-based coalitions forming to deal with matters that are really relevant to our constituents and that would result in a true reflection of the views, opinions and concerns of the people who elect us to represent them. These cross-party, issues-based coalitions would dramatically open up the budgetary process to greater public input, rather than hiding the process behind closed doors.

I have had the opportunity to sit on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. When we are going through the budgetary processes, pretty well the same groups come before that committee every year to make their presentations. We sit there and we listen and we hear much the same thing year after year. The governments listen but they do not act. I think that process has got to be opened up whereby there are more people being listened to than I have observed being listened to in the last while.

Perhaps if this had been the case back in April, the people of Ontario would not have been confronted with a budget that contains 14 tax increases, a 219% increase in Ontario's deficit and a debt for each man, woman and child in this province of $5,700. That is the debt of every one. Perhaps if this had been the case back in April, the people of Ontario would not have been smacked in their wallets with a budget that will long be remembered as the beginning of Ontario's slide into the devastating spiral of increasing taxes and decreasing economic activity.

1020

At this point in the discussion, it should be noted that 88% of those in the riding of Simcoe East who responded to a recent questionnaire of mine indicated that they do not think it was appropriate for the provincial government to double Ontario's debt over four years. That is the long-term, four-year goal of this province. That is what the people are saying.

Perhaps if the government had moved most of the budget-making process out from behind closed doors and sought public input before unveiling the budget last April, it would have gained a great deal of insight into the true views, opinions and concerns of the province. Perhaps if the government had consulted with the people of Ontario, it would have discovered that 88% of the population of this province, not just in the riding of Simcoe East that I represent, do not think it is appropriate for the government to double its debt in four years.

I believe if each member of this Legislature, including the government backbenchers, had a real opportunity to impact on such proposals as the government's move to change the Labour Relations Act, it would ensure the governing party would remain sensitive to all regions of the province and to such diverse groups as representatives of labour and business.

A growing number of workers and businesses in my riding and throughout all Ontario are increasingly worried that the proposed overhaul of Ontario's labour and employment laws will result in the destruction of the unique partnership between labour and business. It is a partnership that is necessary if Ontario is to remain economically healthy and vibrant.

As I pointed out yesterday in the Legislature, the Orillia and District Chamber of Commerce, with approximately 200 businesses and individuals who employ more than 25,000 people, placed a full-page advertisement in the November 23 edition of the Orillia Packet and Times under the heading "Enough is Enough." This ad stated in no uncertain terms that Ontario does not need an overhaul of these laws because existing businesses cannot afford additional costs and restrictions.

If the government had sought input from the public, from the labour movement, from business and from members of this Legislature before setting out to change our labour laws, it would have discovered that such amendments are not necessary and will further add to the damage already caused by the April budget. They will damage this province's already fragile ability to compete in the world marketplace.

The Minister of Labour or one of his colleagues in the government back benches should have stopped by a recent town hall meeting in Midland -- perhaps the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay's busy schedule did not allow him to be there -- which was held to give representatives of labour and business an opportunity to discuss the promotion of competitiveness and prosperity.

The minister or one of his backbenchers would have discovered that labour and business do not want the proposed changes to our labour and employment laws. I have his attention; he is looking. They want unions to be toned down, they want workers to have an opportunity to choose whether or not they want to belong to a union and they want the government to stop forcing industries to leave Ontario because of labour laws.

They also want what I suspect most members of this Legislature want, and that is for the government to scrap the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act. They do not want the government to give prospective investors one more reason not to invest in Ontario. They want the government to develop proposals that address job creation and attraction. They want proposals that will invite and retain employer investment in Ontario.

As I noted earlier, I support the principle and spirit of this resolution. I believe that had it already been in place before the April budget and before the government announced the changes to its labour laws and employment laws, the people of this province would have ultimately been the winners. They would have been winners because they would have been allowed to participate, along with their elected members, more directly and fully in Ontario's democratic process. I support any measures that open up the democratic process. I support moves that give all members of this House a real opportunity to effectively impact on proposed laws, the budget and issues of certain people in all regions of this province.

I had the opportunity this morning to attend the breakfast for the forestry industry of this province. It so happened that I left home in Orillia at 5 o'clock in the morning and arrived here at 7:30 in time for that very important breakfast. What the forest industry was discussing this morning, and it left a lot of concern with many of the members who took the time to attend with this very important industry in Ontario, was that there are 75,000 jobs there.

They indicated to us the four major concerns they have. The four major concerns have to do with the Ministry of the Environment hearings that take place in the forest industry, the costs of the Workers' Compensation Board, the increased fees and rates and the hydro rates. They indicate that if it is true that hydro is going to increase 14%, many of them will be out of business. The fourth major concern they have has to do with the labour laws. Those are four very important issues to labour in this province.

The minister was there, and he spoke about how the investment taking place in British Columbia and Quebec is far superior to what is taking place here in Ontario by those companies that are in business. It shows me they are afraid to further invest heavily in the forest industry. Why? Because of our hydro rates and because of some of the labour laws they are initiating. It is very clear why this forest industry in Ontario, which provides 75,000 jobs, is --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would suggest that you should speak to the resolution.

Mr McLean: I think this has to do with the resolution and I want to carry on with this aspect because this resolution has an awful lot to do with the budgetary process and would dramatically open up greater public input. That is section (c) of the motion I am speaking to when I talk about whether they are investing in Ontario or whether they are investing in Quebec or in British Columbia. These are decisions that are not finalized when we are dealing with the budgetary process in the finance and economic affairs committee.

When we are dealing with that process in the committee, we see that the funding for the non-profit, free credit counselling services, a last-ditch agency for desperate consumers who in good faith want to pay their bills, has been cut from this budgetary process by this government in order to allow those people to pay their own way, which they see as important.

When we look at offloading and downloading when we are talking about the budgetary process, I think this resolution this member has here today to open up the process to allow members to have that free vote they feel would be so important to their constituents -- if this motion had been in place when the member for Lincoln had the opportunity to vote for his constituents, there would not have been the problem that was created within his own party.

For many years I have come to this Legislature with the views of the people I represent. I get them every week, and I respect those people's input and I accept it. That is why the people and the public today are so upset with their politicians, because we have a government here that made all kinds of promises. Once they got elected, they came to Queen's Park, formed a government, and all of a sudden they have changed those commitments.

That is what we are talking about, accountability, and that is what members are talking about, accountability to their constituents. That is why we read of other parties in this province and in Canada that are saying: "We want to open up the process. We want our members to be able to vote as their constituents feel they should vote."

This resolution from the member for Mississauga West really does that and I would urge every member in this Legislature to support it. I do not know how any government member here today could not support this resolution. It gives every member of the provincial Parliament an opportunity "to effectively impact on proposed laws and the budget, in order to ensure governing parties remain sensitive to all regions of the province." I think this is a very important resolution and I commend the member for bringing it forward. I hope that perhaps the member for Lincoln will have an opportunity to speak on it and express his view that a free vote is so important in this Legislature and the reasons it is so important. Too many politicians forget that we are the servants of the people who elect us.

1030

Hon Mrs Coppen: I am pleased to rise today to speak on the resolution by the honourable member for Mississauga West. I do not often get a chance to speak in the House because I do not have a portfolio. I do not make ministerial statements or member's statements. I am waiting to hear from the Speaker if I can answer questions in question period. I thank the deputy whip, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, for squeezing me on to the speakers' list.

I agree with the member for Mississauga West, whose resolution reads that MPPs need "a real opportunity to effectively impact on proposed laws and the budget." The people of Ontario would certainly also agree that they want their elected representatives to speak out for them.

It was because of an interest in shaping public policy that I decided to run for public office in the first place. Now, in my capacity as the MPP for Niagara South, I bring the concerns of my constituents to caucus, cabinet and this House so that we may work to address the issues that concern them.

Weekly, I meet and discuss the area's concerns with individuals, business people and community action groups from Fort Erie, Port Colborne, Wainfleet, Niagara Falls and the smaller communities of Ridgeway, Crystal Beach and Stevensville. Groups from all across Ontario, such as Port Cares, Fort Erie COPE and the Project Share program from Niagara Falls, are all welcome to participate in the government process. These community outreach groups reflect the concerns of all Ontarians and it is my privilege to bring those concerns to this House.

It was a pleasant surprise last September to become a member of the NDP government in Ontario and it is an honour to be the voice of the people of Niagara South in this fine Legislature. I also want to stress the role of MPPs in Her Majesty's loyal opposition. New Democrats have had years and years of opposition and I am proud of that history and the contributions of such people as Mel Swart, Stephen Lewis, Donald MacDonald and Ted Jolliffe as well as the members of our caucus who have served on both sides of this House. I think back to J. S. Woodsworth and his caucus and the enormous influence they had on Canadian history.

All MPPs, regardless of party, have an important influence in the political process. Through the work of individual MPPs in the House, in committees, in our constituencies and in our caucuses, all members, government and opposition, have an opportunity to make a difference. For that reason, I was touched, as were many members in this House, by the remarks of the Lieutenant Governor on Monday when he said to all members, "I just want you to know that if at any time I can speak out in terms of letting the people of this province, of this country, know how hard elected members pursue their responsibilities and with such excellence, I will do so."

Today's resolution also refers to ensuring that government parties remain sensitive to all regions of the province. Let's just look at the members who sit in the chamber. This is the changing face of government: women, including a record number of women in cabinet; a registered nursing assistant; teachers; lawyers; small business people; grassroots community activists, and the first-ever elected deaf representative in the world who uses American sign language.

The chamber is starting to reflect the population of the province. It is no longer simply white middle-class men who decide what is best for the rest of the population. I am proud to be part of a government which is not only sensitive but also more reflective of the population of Ontario than any other government to date. We have only to look at the historical pictures in the hallways of this building to see how far we have come.

I also support the part of the resolution by the member for Mississauga West which refers to opening up the process to greater public input. I am proud to be part of a government which opened its doors to those who have traditionally been excluded from the decision-making process.

One of the first things this government announced was the creation of the Fair Tax Commission to look at the entire tax system and make it fairer. The 10 commissioners come from all walks of life and bring with them the perspectives of business, labour, community groups and other organizations. Some are tax specialists, but they all want to create a tax system in Ontario that is fair.

This government's first budget was introduced after extensive consultation with various interest groups, all sectors of society, including communities, labour and business. In some cases, we were hearing from groups that were being heard for the first time. The standing committee on finance and economic affairs held several weeks of pre-budget consultations and recommended that the process be expanded. Our Treasurer has already announced that he will be expanding the pre-budget consultations. The Premier has said that we want to share with the Ontario public as much as possible the information that is going to allow them to see what the choices are and what the consequences will be of the various steps and choices.

The people of Ontario, as well as the members of the newly elected government, were shocked to learn last fall that there was a $2.5-billion deficit rather than the $23-million surplus we had been led to believe existed. We do not want to see that repeated. We do not want to see that happen ever again in Ontario.

Other issues we have consulted extensively on include the select committee of Ontario in Confederation, including travel to remote communities all across Ontario and discussions around the social charter, and family support, so that women and children get money which is rightfully due to them. Of support orders filed, 75% are in arrears. Over $400 million in support payments are unpaid. This is an important part of the fight against the poverty of women and children in Ontario.

We consulted extensively on rent control and introduced legislation which protects tenants from huge increases in rent. This list goes on. We have talked with people in Ontario.

Kapuskasing: After weeks of discussion, the Ontario government, Kimberly-Clark, Tembec, the employees ownership group and Ontario Hydro worked out an agreement together to save as many jobs as possible at Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co. To date, the employees, the community of Kapuskasing and the surrounding area have raised $15 million. This shows what can be done when people work together.

1040

Bill 70, the wage protection fund, gives laid-off workers money owed to them. Bill 115, the Sunday shopping legislation, protects retail workers while addressing the concerns we hear from business and municipalities.

There are major consultations in progress presently on reforms to the Labour Relations Act, employment equity, long-term care and several other initiatives made by this government. Again, these are opportunities to hear from individuals and groups that have never been heard from and have never been part of the decision-making process.

A fine example of openness and sensitivity of this government is our appointments process. We have opened up the process and are encouraging greater public participation in agencies, boards and commissions. The record of this government on public input speaks for itself.

In conclusion, I support, in principle, the resolution by the member for Mississauga West. However, I will be voting against it. I think it is up to the governing party, whichever party it may be, to show the political will to remain sensitive to all regions of the province, to allow individual members to have leverage on government and to open up the budgetary process. This government has that political will.

Ms Poole: I am very pleased to speak to this resolution by the member for Mississauga West. He has been talking about reform to Parliament for many years and how to make it so that individual members in this Legislature would have more influence and be better able to reflect the views of their constituents. He was fighting this battle long before it became popular or trendy, so I am pleased to support his resolution.

When we were elected to this place, one of our major requirements, at least in my mind, was that we would reflect the views of our constituents, fight their battles and help make their lives better. It may seem idealistic, but that is one of the major reasons I ran for Parliament. What I found when I came here was that this was not the situation. There was very little freedom of individual members in this Legislature to vote their own conscience and to vote according to how their constituents would wish them to vote.

I find it notable that the government whip took almost all the government's time, not allowing its private members to have an opportunity to speak. I know the member for Welland-Thorold would have had many comments to make in this House. He has been deprived because their whip brought out the whip.

She said such things as that their government had made moves to reflect the general makeup of the population in this House. I say to her that it has to be more than tokenism. Yes, the government has 10 women in its cabinet. We Liberals had six women in our cabinet, but every one of those women had influence and power and could effect changes. I wish I could say the same of those 10 women in the NDP cabinet. Too often the NDP will bump up the numbers simply so it can say it has done this wonderful thing, but what does it really mean? When they say they have opened up the public input and the public process to include those who had been excluded, I say that is nothing but a sham.

I will give members a perfect example. This government spent $500,000 -- at least it acknowledged it spent $500,000; it probably spent much more but hid it through consultant fees and other ways. They acknowledge they spent $500,000 on distributing a tenant flyer for Bill 4. When this holier-than-thou government took a look at the reactions of tenants -- it had polling to do this which it has never shared with the House -- the polling showed that tenants had no awareness of this mailout, they were not aware of public hearings and they really did not know what Bill 4 and Bill 121 were all about. The government made a big deal about the fact that it was involving tenants. They have to go beyond this and do it the right way.

To get specifically to the resolution, what the member for Mississauga West has proposed is a way to open the doors for members to exercise more freedom of choice in this Legislature without bringing down the government so that in an incident such as when the member for Lincoln voted against his government last week he would not be punished for doing it. Instead, he should be congratulated for standing up for his constituents and doing what his constituents would have wanted him to do. We have to ensure that members are doing what is right for the people, not what a majority in the cabinet has decreed.

There is a lot of diversity in this province from one end to the other. There are many people in this province who do not share the same ideas as those in other parts. For instance, my colleague the member for Kenora deals with very different problems than I do. I deal with problems such as market value assessment and tenant protection, while issues such as highway transportation and the quality and availability of health care are far more important to his constituents. Let's open up the process so the member for Kenora can vote as he wants to and the member for Eglinton can vote how she wants to, in the best interests of our constituents. This resolution will accomplish that. I firmly support this and think that any free-thinking member of this Legislature cannot fail to do so.

Mr Kormos: I have three minutes and 47 seconds. I have been here for a little bit longer than some of my other colleagues in government. I sat among the 19 people when there were only 19 people in opposition, and I have been in a few of these debates during private members' hours wherein there are 50 minutes to be shared among the speakers. I have never in my party experienced an occasion when that time has not been equitably split. However, I am going to extend the member for Lincoln a courtesy that was not extended to either him or me and ensure that he has at least two minutes and 30 seconds. That clearly does not give him an opportunity to say all he would want to say; it does not give me an opportunity to say all I would want to say.

My position in this regard is probably reasonably well known. I think it is incredibly important that people in this Legislative Assembly recognize their obligations not to those powers within the caucus that put them in or out of a cabinet chair but to the powers that put them in or out of this Legislative Assembly. Those, of course, are the people who live and vote in our respective ridings. The people in those ridings will be far harsher with each and every one of us should we fail to serve them than any whip or House leader or party leader could ever be.

I am in support of this resolution. It is the most modest of proposals. It echoes McGrath, and of course everybody here knows what the McGrath report said. It echoes what was said most recently and most articulately -- far be it from me not to plug a book when it is a good one -- in A Capital Scandal by Fife and Warren, required reading which is available at This Ain't The Rosedale Library on Church Street or down in Welland at Marg McPherson's For the Love of Books on King Street. The members should buy it and read it. I surrender the floor because my time is so brief.

1050

Mr Mancini: I rise to support my colleague's resolution. The member for Mississauga West wants to open up the process here in the Legislature. My colleague wants to give authority and responsibility to the members of the Legislative Assembly. I believe that up until a few short years ago most people believed their member of the Legislature did in fact have authority and responsibility.

My experience has shown me that particularly over the past four or five years, and made even more sensitive by the past 16 months, the people in my constituency believe the elected members of the Legislature basically are a bunch of water boys. They believe this for a variety of reasons. They attend meetings in ridings with their members. They present letters and petitions to their members. They present policy papers to their members. Some of them join political parties. Some of them attend political conventions. Some of them pass political resolutions. Some of them belong to associations, organizations, businesses and unions, all of which try to further their own individual interests. It no longer comes to them as a surprise that the members of the Legislature in fact do not have the authority and the responsibility they once believed we had to make an impact or to influence important legislation or the views of the powerful people at the centre of every political party.

I have sat in this Legislature under a Conservative government, I have sat in this Legislature under a Liberal government and I am sitting in this Legislature under a socialist government. Far too many things are the same. In every situation, a small group of people at the centre -- how they get there sometimes we do not know -- control and direct the complete operations of this Legislature and all its committees.

I was saddened to hear the speech by the government whip. I was saddened for two reasons. First, it was obvious the speech was prepared for her, which I consider to be fundamentally incorrect when we are speaking on a resolution that talks about giving more authority and responsibility to members of the Legislature. She was reading what was prepared for her.

Second, I was disappointed because she did not fundamentally address the points on this resolution by the member for Mississauga West as to how we could increase the authority and responsibility of the members of the Legislature. That is what I want to do today.

I want to make it very clear and plain for all who are listening in this assembly and for all who are watching that I have not been happy with the way Parliament has been run during my 17 years here. It has been consistent through every office and through every party in power. All that have held office have had the same attitude towards members of the Legislature: We are here to support the power structure that seems to gel in the middle and that seems to want to run everything that affects the members of the Legislature, the Legislative Assembly, the committees and everything we have to do.

I can recall during my early years in Parliament there were a number of reformers in all political parties. We got together and asked what we could do to give members of the Legislature more authority and responsibility so that we could better represent our constituents. That is what it is about.

During campaign time, we all run door to door, street to street, neighbourhood to neighbourhood, township to township, town to town and say, "Send me to Queen's Park and I will speak for you." But after the election is over, we sit idly by and allow the superstructures that have developed here to prevent us from doing that. Anyone who does not want to admit that has no intention of representing the wishes of his or her constituents.

A number of years ago, a group of reformers from all parties -- I can remember Mike Breaugh, Sam Cureatz, myself and a few others -- asked, "What can we do so that we can truly represent our constituents?" We wanted private members' bills, which we have now on Thursdays. However, that system has been perverted by the government whips and the people at the centre of power in all parties. We wanted more responsibility in committee, but now that has been perverted by the government whips and by the people at the centre of power in all parties. We saw what happened to the member for Lincoln when he wanted to speak for his constituents. We saw what happened to the member for Welland-Thorold when he wanted to speak for his constituents. We need fundamental change, because the people are way ahead of Parliament.

Mr Hansen: I think I am going to choke in only a minute and 40 seconds the member left me in this speech. I have to say one thing. About a week after I was removed from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, the member for Mississauga West said in one of his speeches to Port Colborne residents that this is a good idea he has proposed today in this resolution.

I will say with the time I have that I will support this resolution. I think there have to be changes made. The changes did not just happen in England; they were made because members stood up until the government finally realized there were problems with the process. I think some of these particular ones on the government would be defeated in the Legislature on express votes of confidence and non-confidence. I think we still have to show the government has power on certain bills.

I will support this resolution. I will wait for the day that the opposition parties will stand up and not vote as one party. When we had the Sunday shopping issue, I imagine there were some members on the other side who would have liked to vote for their constituents.

I have to take a look. Here at Queen's Park I have not found one person who sits on this side of the House or that side of the House who voted for me in the last election to send me to Queen's Park. I have told the people in my riding that I will take the message of what they want to Queen's Park, not what Queen's Park demands of my constituents.

Mr Sola: Before I start on my speech, I would like to correct the record as to the remarks made by the government whip regarding the deficit. I will quote from the auditor's report on page 15.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. You must speak to the resolution.

Mr Sola: I will try to get that in.

The resolution attempts to remain sensitive to every region of this province: northeastern Ontario, northwestern Ontario, eastern Ontario, the Golden Horseshoe and rural areas. This resolution by the member for Mississauga West, for instance, would allow members of the government to vote against Bill 118 because it would allow those members from rural Ontario and the outlying regions who do not have access to natural gas to vote against the bill because they do not want their constituents to support a conversion for something they do not have access to. They do not want to be subsidizing areas which are richer and which have opportunities they do not.

For instance, it would allow the member for Lincoln to support his constituents without fear of retribution by the government front bench, as happened to him when he was fired from his position as Chair. It would have allowed the member for Welland-Thorold to remain true to his convictions, unlike the NDP government, and continue to promote public auto insurance instead of reneging on that heritage commitment as his NDP government has done.

However, perhaps the designation of express votes of confidence would have created the unusual situation where the member for Welland-Thorold would have been the only one to have remained true to the basic plank of the NDP government, and even the front benches would have been voting themselves out of office.

The defeat of a government bill not automatically meaning the defeat of the government was the original intention of Parliament, if I can recall back to my schooldays. It was only monetary bills and express bills of confidence that would have resulted in the defeat of a government.

I support the member for Mississauga West in his resolution.

1100

Mr Mahoney: I would like to thank the members who have spoken in support of this resolution. I appreciate the support of the member for Lincoln and the member for Welland-Thorold particularly. The member for Lincoln said he would like to see the day when the opposition would vote freely. I should tell him this is not about bringing down the opposition. Obviously this is not the problem. The problem is the solidarity and the whipping of government; that is really what the thing speaks to.

Quite frankly, I think the speech by the chief government whip really indicates exactly what the problem is: that the government does not understand the intent and the principle of this resolution which says we are all equal. We all arrived in this place with the support of our constituents. We all campaigned for whatever party and whatever platform on the basis that we as men and women were going to do the best possible job we could on behalf of our constituents. The chief government whip, by saying she supports it in principle but is going to vote against it, clearly demonstrates exactly what the problem is.

I am going to be particularly interested to see how the government members are whipped by the chief government whip. Clearly there are some people with principles like the member for Lincoln and the member for Welland-Thorold who are standing up on behalf of their constituents. Maybe there will be some others who will support this.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I sincerely hope that Mr Hope, I hope, will do so as well. It is easy for you to say.

Very definitely, what the chief government whip has laid out is exactly what we have to stop in this place. It is exactly what we have to change, the attitude that the government will do what the government pleases: "We'll man the torpedoes and to hell with what the people out there think. The members will do what we tell them."

I hope members will show some courage, forget the whip and vote for this resolution.

SCHOOL BREAKFASTS

Mr Harris moved resolution 6:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that one in six children in this province is living in poverty and that the April 1990 Report on Food Banks by the standing committee on social development recommended the creation of school-based meal programs to provide a basic level of nutrition and that the statement to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs by the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario recommends such a program, the government of Ontario, after consultation with educators and in partnership with private sector sponsors, should establish a breakfast program for elementary schoolchildren.

Mr Harris: In 1968-69 and 1969-70, two years, I taught school in a senior public school, grade 7 and 8 children. It was not a poor area of the city of North Bay that I was teaching in, and I am going back of course now in excess of 20 years. I was responsible for what we call lunchroom supervision. All the children at our school ate lunch at school.

I was astounded by two facts: (1) the massive amount of food that was thrown out at the end of the lunch period each day and (2) the number of children, some admittedly from what members would consider poorer families, who either did not have a nutritious meal or who had nothing to eat at lunchtime. At that time, two working parents in each family was not so prevalent and single-parent families were not near the extent which they are today, particularly in many parts of the province.

We set up at that time, in response to these two things, a very simple program. We knew that many times their mothers did not pack exactly the lunch the child wanted. It may have been very nutritious, but it was always somebody else's lunch that was better than the one they had. We set up tables in the lunchroom, and under the auspices of children who were 12, 13 or 14, they could take their lunch and put it on the table. It was an exchange.

Out of that very simple program that cost absolutely nothing -- my fellow teachers accused me, a bachelor at the time, of getting a free lunch, which I did many days with the amount of food that was still left over -- it was amazing the number of children who ate somebody else's nutritious lunch, compared to their own, just because it was different. It was also significant that there was no embarrassment; there was no stigma attached to those who did not have an adequate lunch, as all children came up and shared this table.

I have since been very concerned about the increasing numbers of children who are not receiving the proper nutrition and the effect that is having, particularly in the early childhood years, on their education. In the past 25 years this thought has stayed with me. I have been very intrigued whenever there is a new study out on the correlation between lack of nutrition and lack of performance in school.

There are more and more studies coming out each day on this that reinforce the fact that there is something wrong with our attitude in Canada, as we look around to other countries of the world where, regardless of political philosophy, there is a philosophy that children ought not to be hungry. There is something very dramatic and very cost-effective and in many cases without cost in taxpayer dollars that we can do to make sure this does not happen, at least for those days when children are in school.

As members know, I get an opportunity once every two years or so to bring forward, through private members' time, a bill or a resolution. I believe this resolution, if it is supported by the Legislature and goes somewhere afterwards, if there is some initiative on the part of the government, for the fewest amount of dollars can have the largest single impact on children who are dropping out of our school system, who are not learning as they should learn, who are our most valuable resource. We are losing dramatically because of a very correctable problem and a simple nutritional problem in school.

I could share with members, and I will a little bit now and later as I sum up, the many studies that have been done that point out that hungry children are hampered in their ability to learn, in their concentration levels. They are hampered physically and academically in school. Specialists agree that children follow very predictable trends of learning and development in early stages and that the early years in the education system have a profound impact on the child's future development. Failures in the early years have serious detrimental effects on a child's self-perception, and in many cases he or she never recovers. Regardless of the ability they had when they went there, they never recover in the later years.

1110

Conclusively, children who go to class hungry are tired, they are disinterested and they tend to do poorly in school. Other interesting information is that children go to school without breakfast. The resolution that calls for a breakfast program is not limited to breakfast. It is nutrition, because there are many children who might have breakfast but do not have an adequate lunch. There are many children who are hungry at different times.

There are many successful programs that are providing nutrition, not simply through a breakfast program or a lunch program, but on an ongoing basis throughout the day in the classroom or in a central location. There are many running without any cost to government at all, without any taxpayer dollars at all. There are some with minimal startup costs to taxpayers. There are some with a very minimal cost to the taxpayers, with the majority being volunteers, donations and corporate sponsorship.

I attended a meeting yesterday with about 20 people, experts in this field, who run successful programs -- some nutrition programs throughout the day, some breakfast programs, some lunch programs -- in Toronto through the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, the Catholic school system, the public school system, teachers' federations from London and Waterloo. There were a number where we had consensus, but one thing was very clear: It should not be 100% a government initiative. It required the support and the involvement of the school, the community, the teachers, the principal and those in and around that particular school.

This is something the government can do at not a great cost. This is something that, if the Premier would take it on, would very quickly help children and indeed our whole society and its productivity. I have found in talking to a number of corporate sponsors who are involved and potential corporate sponsors that they would jump at the opportunity to help once they have seen the statistics and the facts of the tragic loss, not only to these children as individuals but to our society as a whole.

None of these corporate people I have talked to want any recognition. In fact most of them want to be anonymous so they are not out there with their names as a target and 100 other people will come after them for money. One of the things that was stressed was that there not be corporate involvement for corporate gain; ie, you do not want to get somebody hooked on your brand of soup and have that as the reason why you are donating your brand of soup. I have not sensed that from one single person in the corporate sector I have talked to. In fact it is the exact opposite. They do not want their name particularly associated. They just want to help.

I am asking for support for this resolution today. I am trying to elevate it. It has been talked about many times. David Peterson, the former Premier of the province, outlined it in the last campaign. He scooped me by three days, so we did not continue our announcement in the last campaign. It has been talked about by many members of the Legislature but it falls through the cracks. The Ministry of Educations says, "Don't take it out of Education dollars." The Ministry of Health says, "Don't take it out of Health dollars." The Ministry of Community and Social Services says, "Don't take it out of Comsoc dollars."

Indeed, it is one of those where it is easy to say: "We supported the resolution. We can sleep now. We're good Christians, and Christmas means more to us now that we supported this resolution," and a year from now not much more will have happened. I am asking for support today for the resolution. Indeed, I am asking for all of us in our caucuses, in cabinet, to say, "How do we make this a reality so next year we're not in the same position?"

Mr Martin: This morning my heart is gladdened as I listen to the member for Nipissing speak about this subject and speak in support of an initiative that I think all of us in this House would be more than willing to support, certainly a principle that should underlie everything we do here. I think government, in its essence, is about making sure the resources that are available to an area, a province, are distributed equitably and in a way that provides opportunity to people, particularly children, to be all they can be.

I was also heartened to hear of the member for Nipissing's personal involvement as a noon-hour aide serving lunch to children. I would like to begin my few comments today with a story of my own. My father was a janitor for a long time in a separate school in a community in northern Ontario. At one point in his tenure as janitor, there was a young boy who came to school each morning without having had breakfast, and on most days not having any lunch with him. My father, being the sensitive, caring man he is, recognized in this boy the things being pointed out today by some of the studies that have been done around poverty and children and children's ability to operate in school if they are hungry. He recognized some of the symptoms and realized that this boy was coming to school hungry, so he would invite him into his janitor's room at lunchtime and share with him his sandwiches and his cookies. They became, through that interaction, very good friends.

The story then jumps ahead about 15 years, with my parents in a huge house they had acquired because they had many children. All of us had gone on to work or school. It was an empty house and they were feeling quite alone in their retirement years. At 1 o'clock in the morning this particular night the phone rang. It was a long-distance call from Calgary, and it was this same young boy my father had shared his sandwiches with calling him to say that today he had got his first job and that he wanted my dad to know.

I suggest to members that there is a connection between this boy's ultimately being successful and contributing and participating constructively in the world he is now living in by having a job, a job he was obviously excited about, and the fact that somebody noticed he was hungry when he was young and going to school and took the bit of time that was required to feed him.

I guess it is in the light of stories like that, which so many of us could probably tell from our personal experience and the experience of people we have talked with, that we know this resolution brought forth by the member for Nipissing this morning is a good resolution. It is the kind of thing we in this House should perhaps be focusing more attention on and giving more time to and contributing more resources to.

Just recently the Minister of Community and Social Services and myself had a meeting with some folks at a downtown school in Sault Ste Marie. The topic of discussion was the integration of children's mental health services. We had parents, we had teachers, we had officials from school boards at that meeting. The first item on the agenda -- we were expecting it might be different -- was the issue of children and poverty, and nutrition and food, and the possibility of a breakfast program.

I like this resolution. I like it as a suggestion. I think it speaks to a real need in our province today. Certainly no one in government or on the other side can deny that we do have in front of us a real challenge around the question of poverty, particularly where it affects children.

In a report by the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition on poverty in Ontario, I think in April 1991, there is a comment made at the very beginning about the issue of poverty: "What is most shocking, however, is that 400,000 children in this province live in poverty and that 25% of the children who are poor in Canada grow up in this province."

With those facts and figures in front of us, I think we really do need to look at ways that we as a community can come together most creatively in front of this question. I refer as well to an article in a magazine put out, I believe, by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. It says: "The Ontario New Democratic Party's 1984 report is right. For the poor, education means burdens, not opportunities; imprisonment, not liberty. As child poverty numbers continue to climb in this recession-ridden 1991, the education system must come under greater scrutiny."

1120

The question is, how are we hindering students living in poverty? The answer is a complicated one and is going to require all of us putting aside some of the old blocks that get in the way of our co-operating around something that calls out not only to our minds but to our hearts, as we go back to our constituencies each weekend to meet people who tell us about the effect and the impact this recession is having on them and on their families.

I suggest to members today that the greatest obstacle to this particular resolution coming into reality is one of attitude -- our attitude and the attitude of people in general out there in our communities -- around the issue of poverty and why people are in poverty. It is also one of misinformation, misunderstanding and philosophical base re the question of why some people find themselves in need of social assistance programs and other people do not. I think we all need to get into a very honest and truthful discussion about those particular issues, particularly at the grass-roots level in our communities.

I agree with the member for Nipissing that we need to focus on this. I agree that it needs to be a co-operative effort. All the partners who have a vested interest in children in the communities need to be involved. I would suggest to members that my colleagues who will speak to this issue after me will talk to some specific programs in their communities, as there are in mine, where church groups and community groups have come together already to support schools that have recognized hunger as an issue for some of their kids and have begun actually to answer this question.

I will be supporting the resolution today and I will be urging the rest of the House to do so. It is one of the most important things we will face in the next few years in this province.

Mrs Caplan: I rise today to participate in this debate with a good degree of sadness. The leader of the third party, the member for Nipissing, has posed a resolution which is not new. There is no new information that has been provided that has not been known for quite some time. Experts agree that providing children with a nutritious breakfast facilitates improved school performance. There is a direct correlation between the two.

We have a patchwork in parts of this province with breakfast programs at this time. I am very aware of that in my own riding of Oriole in the city of North York. There are a number of excellent breakfast programs but, quite honestly, there are not enough of them.

The reason I am quite sad is that I am aware that on August 21, 1990, a breakfast program was announced for this province. The program was to provide $1.50 per child to defray costs of food. The total program was laid out as a real partnership and as a real opportunity for what I think would have been one of the most significant health promotion and disease prevention programs available in this province. The program was to be funded by the Ministry of Health's health promotion branch and the total cost was estimated at $18.5 million.

It was part of the Liberal government's commitment to the vision that we had stated so clearly in our throne speeches, and to the health goals for Ontario that were developed by the Premier's Council on Health Strategy. I was very proud to serve as vice-chairman of that very important body. The Premier's Council has continued. We have not heard from the new government whether it has accepted that vision, nor have we heard whether it intends to proceed with those goals. In fact, from the first Minister of Health, the member for Ottawa Centre, we heard that their goals are different.

Let me repeat what the health goals of our government were for Ontario. We said the first goal should be to shift the emphasis to health promotion and disease prevention. The second was to foster strong and supportive families and communities. A breakfast program, the one that was proposed in August 1990, would have gone some way to achieving those first two goals in a real partnership with the community, with the private sector. It was in fact modelled on the very successful breakfast programs that have been developed, as I said, in a patchwork across this province. For the first time there would have been an opportunity for real partnership in reaching out to meet the needs of children in our province. I think the one thing we can all agree on is that even in times of economic restraint and difficulty, the priority must be for our future and for our children.

The concern I have is that what we have seen from this government is absolutely nothing. The program had been approved by the former Treasurer. The funding was in place and it was there. What we have seen from the NDP government is that it has shredded its own Agenda for People. They have said to the people of this province, "We're not going to do what we said we were going to do." They have said that very clearly time and time again and I for one have said that is a really good thing, because some of the things they promised to do were really dumb. But there were some things we promised to do that they should have done already, and this is one of them. That is why I am sad to rise today to talk about how important it is that we all get together and make sure that children have the opportunity to reach their own potential and do as well as they can in school.

The quote I would like to put on the record is from August 21, 1990: "It's hard to develop a full mind on an empty stomach." I also want members to know, and I think the member for Nipissing would agree, that it is not just poor children who suffer from undernutrition. We do not want to label children who need to have a good, healthy breakfast as only poor children. While we know that is a particular problem for those children who live in poverty -- the numbers are growing and it is a real concern to me that we have that awful reality in our province today -- there are also children from every socioeconomic stratum who go to school undernourished and who would benefit from the opportunity for a good breakfast as part of the school breakfast program.

We should all be supportive of the notion that all children, regardless of economic background, should have the opportunity to learn and grow and benefit from our public school system, from our educational system. We should collectively agree that one of the ways of letting them do that is to make sure they have the opportunity for a nutritious breakfast. I would state again that this opportunity was announced as part of a comprehensive government program, ready to be implemented and put in place. The funding was there. I do not know what has happened to it. I know it was going to be funded through the health promotion branch of the Ministry of Health. I know the program was going to include the community development opportunity of getting everybody involved to achieve that goal of real partnership.

One of the most successful health promotion programs to date has been run by MTHA breakfast club programs. I recently attended their annual breakfast. That is an opportunity of partnerships where the private sector, the public sector, MTHA, the city of North York and the boards of education participate. On numerous occasions I have worn the apron and have been a celebrity chef. I have seen the happy faces of those children as they came together and played and had a good, nutritious breakfast. Working with me those mornings have been school principals who tell me of the improved performance of children in the classrooms.

1130

I am sad this morning that, 15 months after the last election, 16 months after this program was announced, 16 months after the dollars were available, this government has done nothing. It could have been implemented, and here we are today debating a resolution by the leader of the third party which, as far as I am concerned, should have been done, could have been done and, sadly I say, would have been done. I cannot understand why it has not been done, because the effects are absolutely clear.

We know what the statistics say. We know that undernourished children score poorly on cognitive, perceptual and psychological tests and show diminished verbal abilities. While poverty increases a child's chance of being undernourished, undernutrition can exist at all socioeconomic levels.

The development of a breakfast program for children in this province is not one that will only combat poverty, although it will take some steps towards making sure children who are victims of poverty have the opportunity for a good meal. I am not saying it is the solution to poverty; it is not, but it is one of the solutions to breaking the poverty cycle, because you would ensure that those children have an opportunity to learn. You would also ensure that those children from other socioeconomic levels, while not living in poverty, have the opportunity to learn to achieve their potential.

I would say to the members of the government caucus, who I am assuming are going to speak in support of this, if they are not going to do what they said they were going to do, how about doing what we said we were going to do? How about putting in place the program that was there, that was designed, that was ready to go? Stop the talk. The time for action is now. The time for action was 15 months ago. The rhetoric, the words of concern, are all very nice, but it is now time to do something. People are telling me, "We're tired of talk, we're tired of consultation, we're ready for action." They have the opportunity to do that; they are the government. I am glad to see that their members of caucus today, during private members' hour, are standing up and saying to their government: "Do it. Do the right thing."

I will be supporting this amendment with the hope that this government will implement the program that was ready to go. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this important debate.

Mr Jackson: I am very pleased to be able to rise in support of my leader, the member for Nipissing, to express support for his resolution today and also to recognize his long-standing concern, as has been expressed in our caucus over the years I have had the privilege of working with him.

On the other hand, I am very disappointed that we have to use private members' time to deal with an issue I believe all members of this House share as a concern, and that is the issue of child poverty and the extended concerns as they surface about those children who attend school on a daily basis and who attend hungry, who attend undernourished, who attend with a whole battery of social and physiological problems that will result because they are children who arrive at school undernourished and hungry.

Unfortunately we have only been given one hour of the House's time for this important issue, but it would be wrong for us to pursue this in a partisan way. We as a caucus disagree with the various approaches. We disagree, for example, that we would need $18 million, as was suggested in a proposal by the Liberal Premier in the last election. We might disagree, for example, with the socialists on the issue of rent control when we see more and more of the community having to spend more and more of their limited dollars on housing. We know we disagree on the issue. We would provide a shelter subsidy so that there is enough disposable income for a family so it can acquire those other necessities of life besides a shelter, which seems to be an uncontrollable expense in this province.

I simply want to say that as politicians we should be taking the position that to simply hand out food and to simply extend a hand of charity without in the same breath speaking out and dealing with the issues and attacking the root causes of poverty would be wrong. Failure to do that, in my view, would be to perpetuate the very problem.

I had the privilege of sitting on the standing committee on social development and doing the work on the Report on Food Banks. We listened to various jurisdictions in North America that have entrenched programs with food stamps and what not, and we were strongly cautioned not to get into that. That is why I think, as we move to this issue of breakfast programming, we are hearing from those people in the field who work in this area that we should not turn to government to entrench this as a government program, that in fact we should look towards community-based solutions; we should look to the contribution of the private sector.

I know that sounds like a dirty word to some members of this House, but imagine that this is part of the corporate responsibility within a community, part of a community responsibility to share those resources, that we do not always have to tax persons, take $10 from them, spend $3 or $4 on bureaucracy in Queen's Park and then send $6 back for them to work with. Let's let our communities deal with these commonsense solutions within the context of their own community.

It is in that context that our leader and our party are presenting this case to address the issue of those children who lack the nourishment and lack the basic sustenance of a breakfast when they start their day in school. My leader, the member for Nipissing, has indicated that these are not just poor children. These are also children who have parents who have to leave at 7:30 in the morning. Both parents are working and there just is not enough time to feed the child.

We have cases where the child's metabolic rate is such that he is just not interested in eating breakfast, but maybe by 10 o'clock it is important that he get some food. We have to listen and make sure we are clear that all children are different, but all children should have a basic right to a breakfast in the morning because it is so integral to their learning and to their socialization.

We have to make sure that when we deal with this issue we do not stigmatize those children who need it. What is so beautiful about the breakfast program in existence today is that it is treated like a club. Kids bring a quarter. Not all the kids can afford a quarter, but they are asked to bring a quarter and participate in a breakfast club. It is a fun thing to be involved in, and not a case where the child is out in the playground and the bullies are pushing him and saying: "Ah, you're one of those poor kids. You're taking a breakfast in the morning." All children are welcome. All children are asked to participate, to be involved, and it becomes quite a nice activity for all of them. We have to be careful not to stigmatize the program, and that is what my fear is with lots of government funding thrown at a problem like this. Allow volunteers within the community, volunteers in the corporate sector, to participate.

I want to suggest we have to be very careful about how we teach our children the whole concept of charity. I had a revelation recently from my daughter who goes to school. She is in kindergarten. She is told to bring a snack. Last week she said, "Dad, I'd like to bring a snack because one or two of the kids don't bring snacks." At first I was really proud of my daughter that she had embraced this concept she should share. But then I became a little concerned that we are now involved in a bit of a charitable act and in fact what we should be trying to suggest is, what kind of program would allow my daughter not to see the children in her class as different on the basis of income, different on the basis of opportunity and different on the basis of privilege? I appreciated her sense of charity, but by the same token, how are we, as parents and as a government and as a school board, helping her if we are not helping her to understand that?

I am always fond of quoting a Zen proverb which exists in virtually every school in this province: Give a child a fish and he will eat for a day, but if you teach a child to fish, he can eat for a lifetime. I think in that proverb rests the whole point of what we are trying to stress here, that we cannot turn to government for a daily handout of taxpayers' funding. We must teach our community the true nature and the true face of poverty and its effects, and in turn we must involve our community in seeking true solutions so that we can pass on a lifetime of dignity and equal opportunity for our children who are struggling with this issue.

1140

Mr Hope: I share some of the concerns the member for Burlington South has just raised, and dealing with the resolution, I must say it is one of very few things I agree about with the member for Nipissing. I agree that the resolution being put forward is one I will be supporting.

As we talk about the children and about healthy minds and healthy bodies, short-term costs, long-term gain as far as our health care systems are concerned and making sure that the young people, the future leaders of Ontario and probably of Canada, are actively involved with healthy minds, these times are very unfortunate, as the member for Burlington South alluded to, and we must stop the effects that are happening to create poverty in our areas.

One of the unfortunate things I have a hard time understanding is why the member for Nipissing has attacked this government's initiatives in Back on Track, which are helping more people through social assistance, making sure that through a 10% and a 7% increase that they have more income to provide the basic needs of living today.

I wish we could get things very straight on where we are going. But one of the effects it is causing, especially in my riding of Chatham-Kent, where I am really seeing it very much lately -- I know there are a number of people here today in the members' gallery. For instance, Ron Tack, who is one of the councillors in Wallaceburg, is very concerned about what is going on in his area in Wallaceburg, which is part of my riding. We have Derry McKeever here, who is president of the labour council and who is very concerned about the job losses and some of the impacts that are causing the devastation of poverty.

I will not keep pointing fingers, but I must allude to the goods and services tax and the high interest rates. Everybody asks us why there are high interest rates. A lot of us working people have to borrow money in order to keep things ahead, and as interest rates go high, our cost per month goes high. The UIC cutbacks were affecting a lot of people in my area.

But I want to get back to the issue the member has put forward here today. I think it is very important that our education system, which plays an important role in the development of our children for the future in this competitive marketplace -- we must be a highly competitive, highly skilled labour force into the future, and I think it is important that we start to address those needs in making sure we can be competitive into the future.

I am not saying at all that the parents in my community are neglecting their children. We are not saying that. It is a basic matter of survival, with the increase of costs of housing and rent, and now this government is making a number of initiatives there, but I am sure parents care about their children. The member for Burlington South mentioned his daughter. I have two young children who go to school and they can identify very clearly when somebody is in need of food or is not able to bring a treat. They are there with open arms for these people. But I know the parents in my community, whether they be single or double or both working or whatever it may be, are very concerned about their children's future, which is very important.

But one of the things I want to get out, because I know my friend the member for Guelph wants to talk a bit, is that I had a particular issue in my riding where allergies play a significant role, and what I am very concerned about is that if we start the breakfast programs, we must make sure we identify the children in our school systems who have very severe allergies that could cause death. I had an incident in my community where this happened and it was a simple treat. It was bring-a-treat day and what happened is it caused a fatal devastation to the family. So one of the elements we have to make sure of is that when we bring in something like this, we identify other areas that may be affected.

I will be supporting the resolution of the member for Nipissing. I think it is important. I think we have to go beyond just breakfast; it ought to include lunches. It is very important that we develop healthy minds in order to have healthy bodies and control health care costs and put the perspective back. It is a learning process and we are all going to learn together.

I know the Minister of Community and Social Service, the parliamentary assistant and the ministry are very dedicated to the children of the future and the children of today and making sure we have effective programs that will meet their needs.

Mr Curling: I rise today in full support of the honourable member for Nipissing, the leader of the third party, and to echo also the sound words of my colleague the member for Oriole.

As recently as November 23, 1991, young people from Ontario and New York gathered together at a youth conference in Toronto sponsored by the Hunger Project of Canada, of which I happen to be one of the directors, to keep a promise. As members may remember, that was echoed in 1990 -- I think somewhere around September 29 or 30 -- when 71 world leaders got together to say that we must address and keep the promise to the children suffering from malnutrition and starvation.

We do not have to go far. Right here in our own country and our own province, there are children who are being neglected or who are not able to get sufficient food in the morning, which is more or less the sustenance of the day.

We are not here today to sing praises or point fingers, but I want to take this opportunity to thank people like the mayor of North York, Mel Lastman, who, when I was the Minister of Housing, approached me to start the breakfast club; Rick Gosling, a bureaucrat who worked hard over the years, and Jean Augustine, who is now with the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, who carry on the tradition of the breakfast club, which has shown tremendous results of what is happening.

The wellbeing of our children requires political action at the highest level -- as a matter of fact, at all levels. We may come in here today and say we support things in principle. I would like to see that after today we move to some action. I agree with the honourable member for Burlington South who stated that we are going to take one hour of time to move forward with what really should be a government initiative. What we hear is a defence and praise of what the government of the day has done.

Let us recognize the fact that there is a need. It is really appalling to realize that thousands and thousands of our children today who go to school during the day have not had breakfast. We have seen tremendous results from the breakfast club that is now in place. We have gotten reports back from teachers and the board of education about the level of the attention span, which has increased, and marks, which have improved. Therefore, we have gotten their best work.

If we do not protect or encourage our young people, later on in life we will pay for that. Sure, we can find much rhetoric, especially in this House. In all parliaments of the world we find beautiful rhetoric, beautiful words. We just have to research all the Hansards and find every word to fit very lovely phrases. But it is not phrases, it is not talk we want; it is action. As members have heard me say many times, we must stop talking the talk but we must walk the walk. We have an opportunity today in which we all can get together. I urge the government that we form a committee to address this issue.

Many times we have said this is a non-partisan issue. There are times when we drift into pointing fingers. If we want to point fingers, we should point fingers to children now in the school system who are going without any breakfast. We should point to them and direct our energies and our resources to them. The reward and what we will get from this will be something more beneficial for this province and this country.

I want to thank the honourable member for Nipissing again for bringing this forward. He has my full support on this resolution.

1150

Mrs Cunningham: It is with honour that I speak in favour of the resolution this morning that we establish breakfast programs throughout Ontario with the help of the private sector.

I just want to put on the record today a couple of programs that are working, so that when the government takes a look at this, it will have at least a couple of ideas with regard to implementation.

We all know -- school boards, teachers and parents across Ontario have told us -- that there is a need for breakfast and snack programs. In fact, it has increased this fall. That is what we are hearing. A year ago when we asked for this, we knew there was a need, but the need has increased this fall.

The London Board of Education receives excellent support from the Maycourt Club, which is a women's service club. They do a lot of fund-raising for children's services. It is not just that the school board does this by itself; it relies on service clubs and the private sector to help. There are more than 30 schools involved in London today.

There are also a number of staff members who supplement the program financially and volunteer their time to oversee it. It is a significant commitment from staff and I am sure everyone is very appreciative. At this time, I would like to congratulate the staff in London and around the province who feel it is part of their commitment to their pupils to make sure these kinds of programs happen in school. We have all heard that children who are hungry cannot learn. They strongly believe children have a much better frame of mind and are much more able to learn when they have had a proper meal.

Most of the schools are moving towards a snack program, although they have breakfast programs at this point in time. It is done in a very quiet way so the children who really need the food are not singled out in any way. The London Home and School Association should also be congratulated for its involvement. It makes a donation to the Maycourt Club.

I am already on record talking about the studies that indicate there is a relationship between hunger and the ability of children to excel at school. Recognizing this problem in Toronto, Ian Sorbie came forward and, working with children, teachers and administrators, established a breakfast program for the children at Roden Junior Public School. Each day 168 children receive a nutritious breakfast at a cost of $150 a day. He feels this experience can now serve as a model throughout the province.

Establishing a breakfast or snack program for elementary school children in partnership with the private sector is an initiative that my party supports and that many individuals across the province support. It is with pleasure that I have the opportunity to speak this morning in favour of the resolution by the member for Nipissing. I hope we have given the government some precedents upon which it can work to make certain school boards across the province and children who go to school hungry will have an opportunity.

Mr Fletcher: I am pleased to rise today in support of the resolution by the member for Nipissing. I think it is about time this Legislature discussed the problem of child poverty. It is not an issue that is brand new; it is an issue that has been around for a while and is something that has to be addressed.

In my own riding of Guelph we have a church group, also supported by teachers and the principal of Tyler School, Mr White. A few years ago, they implemented a breakfast program for the students of that area. At first it did not take off because there was a stigma attached to it. People thought only poor people would go to this and you would be labelled as a poor person. But as the stigma was replaced and people began to realize there is a relationship between nutrition and learning, more and more students began to take advantage of the program, which is supported by the Wellington County Board of Education. It is a program that is working well and supplying a basic need for students.

If I have a concern about this resolution, it is a concern about the private sector's involvement. If the private sector really wishes to help out and reduce child poverty, it should start paying a decent wage to parents and creating jobs instead of leaving the country. It should start looking at its social responsibilities within communities and become good corporate citizens, as we hear they wish to be. I do not think we can always rely on the private sector to be there when we need it.

I agree with the member for Nipissing that the government must do something in order to help with the problem of child poverty and what is going on in the school system. I think it is important that every member in this Legislature supports this resolution and shows concern for what is going on. But I know one of the objectives for the government of this day is to try to reduce the amount of child poverty. The best way to do that is to make sure we have an economic system that can support the populace.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Curling: We have 10 seconds.

Mr Mahoney: We might as well use it.

Mrs Cunningham: In 10 seconds?

Mr Mahoney: In 10 seconds, I just want to say I support this resolution. I think we all know that a hungry child will not learn well. This is a step in the right direction.

Mr Harris: I thank all those who have taken the time this morning to be here and those who have spoken in support of the resolution.

In summing up, who are the hungry children? Many have talked, and my resolution talks, about those children who are living in some definition of poverty, below a poverty line or where the resources are not as great as they are for others.

That is only one component. Certainly, in surveys that have been done and in experiences where trial programs have been brought forward and in existing programs, low-income families are part of the problem. A part is simply information. What is nutritious? There are many inexpensive alternatives available. Part of the program is the health component, as was mentioned by the member for Oriole, the nutrition component, for both parents and children.

In his study, Dr McIntyre suggests that we should not always equate breakfast with bacon and eggs. In fact, far more nutritious are such lower-cost options as cereals, toast and peanut butter. So part of the program is educational and is aimed at all children in that area. But Dr McIntyre goes on to say that there are many of what he calls the hidden hungry because we do not pick them up under statistics of what we consider children living in poverty -- children of shift workers, children who for whatever reason are left to make their own breakfast without a lot of parental involvement in the home, because the parents are out working, and do not make their own breakfasts. These can be children of all income levels.

The children of non-breakfast eaters: There are many people who can well afford breakfast who do not eat breakfast. A 1985 health promotion survey found that 18% of adults do not eat breakfast. Regardless of income or time availability, they just do not eat breakfast. Parents who do not recognize the importance of eating in the morning will not encourage their children to eat breakfast. Children have much smaller stomachs -- a pretty obvious statement -- and cannot afford to go without a meal the way adults can. They cannot afford to make it up at another meal time. That awareness must be raised.

In order to lose weight, obese children may be encouraged to skip a meal, but children's metabolism is much different. While I do not think this is recommended as a healthy way even for adults to lose weight, for children it is devastating to skip a meal completely. Given the metabolism of many young children, perhaps four, five or six meals a day are better, including some nutritious portion for all of those meals.

That is the first thing I wanted to make sure we understand. We are not just talking about poverty in a breakfast or nutrition program in our schools. If we tripled the amount of money or if employers paid everybody 10 times more money -- aside from the fact they are going broke now and how ridiculous that is -- that would not solve the problem of nutrition and children in our schools who are not learning as they should, who are experiencing failure at an early age, a devastating time of their lives, for want of nutrition. It is important we understand that.

1200

There are three criteria all the groups I have consulted with feel are important. This is non-political in a philosophic sense. The first criterion is that it must be open to all. It is not a breakfast program or a nutrition program geared to income. When we look at those children who right now are found wanting in the area of nutrition, it is not just those you can set criteria for, whether it is poverty or working mothers and fathers; it must be open to all.

The second criterion they all agreed on was that the community must be involved. It must not be a 100% government initiative or a 100% school initiative. The community itself must be involved, the education involved in that being an important component.

The third criterion is flexibility. The requirements in one school and one neighbourhood might be very different from the requirements in another school and another neighbourhood. The requirements in North Bay might be very different than the requirements in a Cabbagetown or Regent Park school.

Those are the parameters. Those are the criteria. What they all agree on is that we must move on it. It is not particularly expensive but it requires some will. We cannot afford to allow the argument: "Should it be Health or should it be Education? Where are we going to find the money?" It is not a very large sum of money. Spending by this government this year I think is up $7 billion or $8 billion. It was similar under other Conservative or Liberal governments. We must find this money.

Finally, I would ask all members who have indicated they will support this to raise in the next caucus meeting: "How are we going to follow up on this, Mr Premier, Mr Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Leader of the Conservative Party? How are we going to make it happen?"

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

The House divided on Mr Mahoney's motion of resolution 33, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 50

Abel, Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Christopherson, Cunningham, Curling, Dadamo, Duignan, Eves, Fawcett, Fletcher, Frankford, Hansen, Harrington, Harris, Hope, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Jordan, Kormos, Mahoney, Mancini, Marland, Martin, McClelland, McLean, Morrow, Murdock, S., O'Connor, Offer, O'Neil, H., Owens, Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Sola, Sullivan, Sutherland, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Ward, M., Wilson, J., Wiseman, Witmer, Wood.

Nays -- 12

Bisson, Carter, Cooper, Haeck, Lessard, Klopp, MacKinnon, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, G., Winninger.

SCHOOL BREAKFASTS

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Harris has moved resolution 6.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 1214.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Curling: I wanted to comment briefly on something I read in one of our local tabloids, as my friend the Treasurer would say. Responding to reports that some labour leaders are using public money to hire family and friends, former Ontario Federation of Labour president and hiring committee member Cliff Pilkey had this to say: "You want us to hire people off the street, people we don't even know?"

It is precisely this kind of game that has been used for so long to effectively deny employment opportunities to women and visible minorities and others who are outside the network. Obviously, when it comes to employment equity, some of our unions, despite their fine words, have a long way to go when it comes to their own hiring practices.

Finally, speaking for the Chevrolet and other assembly line workers whom I have known, I would like to let the OFL bosses know that these are skilled, intelligent and professional men and women, any one of whom would be as capable as sons and daughters of important labour leaders.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Runciman: The NDP government is threatening to change labour legislation in this province and it has Ontario businesses scared stiff. I think the comments of Toronto labour lawyer Stewart Saxe are bang on. He says: "The proposed labour legislation favours unions, not workers, and is payment for labour's electoral and financial support of the governing New Democrats. Government is sending a message that Ontario is closed for business."

Mr Saxe is the son-in-law of former NDP member Morton Shulman. That is right, a former NDP member.

Not surprisingly, the Ontario Federation of Labour wants the government to strengthen its proposed strikebreaker law by preventing companies from shifting production to another location during strikes. The truth is that labour bosses want to hold all the cards and do not give a damn about the future of companies which employ their members.

In fact, we have evidence that some of these highly paid labour leaders prefer to keep the big labour bucks in the family. Today's headline reads, "Relatives, Pals 'Pig Out' in Union Jobs." The story describes how nepotism is running rampant at the Workers Health and Safety Centre. The 22-year-old daughter of Gordon Wilson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, got a $57,000-a-year job at the centre. Of course this job was not advertised. I wonder how many union members would have liked to have applied. The union staffers are disgusted and call it scandalous nepotism.

It is time the Premier put a collar on his labour organizer, the member for Hamilton East, by initiating constructive discussion with business. Otherwise the jobs that he and his union boss buddies want to protect so badly will be gone for ever.

NATIONAL FARM WOMEN'S CONFERENCE

Mr Sutherland: It was my pleasure recently to attend the fifth annual National Farm Women's Conference in London. Speakers included the Minister of Community and Social Services; the member for Essex-Kent, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food; the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs, the honourable Joe Clark, and the federal Minister responsible for the Status of Women, the honourable Mary Collins.

This was an important and successful conference and I want to congratulate conference chair Donna Lund, a Belmont-area farmer, and two of the many Oxford county organizers, Betty Semeniuk and Elaine Ball, for a great job.

The conference touched on a number of issues important to farm women today. Women have always played a major role on the farm but have seldom been recognized for it in the past. In the latest census, 126,880 women reported agricultural occupations, yet more than half of them were unpaid. The value of their labour is estimated to be worth more than $1,000 per week. Without their unpaid contributions, Canadian farm families, already facing drastic times, would be in even tougher shape. The majority of these same women hold off-farm jobs as well to help pay for living expenses that cannot be squeezed out of the land due to depressed commodity prices, international trade wars and drought.

The stress experienced by farm families is taking both an emotional and physical toll. I sat in on a session about abuse put on by the Guelph-Wellington Women in Crisis group. As one of only a couple of men in the audience, it was both enlightening and educational. I encourage all members of this House to enter into the discussion of abuse and how we can bring about a solution.

WETLANDS

Mr Brown: Less than one hour ago the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Canadian Environmental Law Association released a document which they had obtained in a brown envelope.

Mrs Caplan: Call the cops.

Mr Brown: Yes, call the cops. This leaked document, entitled Confidential Draft Policy Statement: Wetlands, was produced for the ministries of Municipal Affairs and Natural Resources and is dated April 17. In September of this year the two ministries, under the direction of the Minister of Natural Resources, released for consultation a document called Policy Statement: Wetlands.

Even a quick examination of the documents brings one to a very disturbing conclusion. The first document, the uncirculated, leaked document, is far stronger with regard to wetland habitat conservation than the one put out for consultation. What is surprising is that the Minister of Natural Resources left such an obvious written and spoken record of his concern for wetlands, and yet allowed a very unprogressive document out for consultation while shelving the document that was closer to his views when in opposition.

The minister appears to be like Mr Bush. Campaigning in 1988, George Bush was for the preservation of wetlands. He is nowhere to be seen on that subject today. I think we should start calling the Minister of Natural Resources George Bush Wildman.

NORTH YORK BOARD OF HEALTH

Mr Harnick: In 1989 more than 116,000 schoolchildren benefited from North York health department education programs which provide information on substance abuse, tobacco prevention, nutrition, sexuality and decision-making. The department also provided individual assessment, education and referral services to over 13,000 elderly persons and care givers. Furthermore, the department responded to more than 25,000 community requests for environmental inspections. The North York public health department serves 550,000 while providing a vital link between the community and its services and programs.

Since 1967 health units outside of Metropolitan Toronto have received a provincial grant of 75% of their budgets. The North York Board of Health currently receives a provincial grant for 40% of its budget. The province dictates that boards of health perform 22 mandatory health programs, which represent the major portion of general programming for all health units in Ontario, yet the funding ratio between the North York Board of Health and other boards outside Metro is drastically different.

I call upon the Minister of Health to address this funding inequity and provide the North York Board of Health with a similar percentage of funding as the province provides to boards of health outside Metropolitan Toronto.

GIFTS THAT GIVE

Mr G. Wilson: Last Saturday I had the pleasure of attending Gifts that Give. Gifts that Give is a unique holiday bazaar that this year featured 34 non-profit groups working in the areas of peace, development, the environment and social justice. Hundreds of shoppers spent over $32,000 to fund worthwhile projects both here at home and abroad.

For example, you could purchase certificates from Kingston Literacy for a family reading kit in the name of a relative or friend or buy a health education package for a whole community from Street Kids International. The variety of gifts was remarkable. You could adopt a whale, plant a tree in Africa, buy an acre of local conservation land or sponsor cataract surgery. More traditional gifts were available in the form of crafts, clothing and household items from many areas of the Third World.

To promote peace and nuclear disarmament, Kingston Operation Dismantle, the organizers of the event, sold coffee mugs and posters, while Canadian Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War offered colourful "Protect the World" T-shirts.

I remember Gifts that Give for the happiness I felt and saw around me. I believe this happiness was an outcome of the spirit of solidarity encouraged by the bazaar, the kind of spirit we like to associate with Christmas. Congratulations to Judith Wyatt and Kingston Operation Dismantle for Gifts that Give, in itself a gift to our community.

1340

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

Mr McClelland: It grieves me to stand in this Legislature day after day after day and express our party's profound disappointment in the Minister of the Environment and this NDP government. They have the audacity to try to push forward such a draconian piece of legislation as Bill 143, their Waste Management Act.

The government introduced Bill 143, which has severe implications for all municipalities, during the municial election campaign. They attempted to sneak this bill by while most municipal politicians were busy on the campaign trail, hoping they would not notice. My friends opposite should be advised that municipal politicians have noticed. They will not allow this bill to go forward without full consultation and significant amendments.

I do, however, have some very good news for the Minister of the Environment. I have received a memorandum addressed to members of the Toronto council from the works department. In fact, I would be very surprised if the minister herself did not have that memo in her possession. If she does, as I expect she does, she will know that the Metro works department now projects that the lifespan of Keele Valley is well into the year 1999, in fact into mid-1999. The minister must be delighted with this news, since there is now no reason that she and the NDP government cannot keep their campaign promise to have full environmental assessment on the expansion of the Keele Valley site.

She now has up to eight years to complete an environmental assessment. I do not know what excuse she is going to try and dredge up for this one, because there is none. I await with anticipation the minister's announcement of the significant amendments to Bill 143 we are going to see.

TERRI-LYNN SHERWOOD

Mr Eves: I would like to rise today in recognition of a constituent, a nine-year-old girl who resides in Burk's Falls, in the riding of Parry Sound. Today at lunch she, along with several other Ontarians, received a 1991 fire prevention and public education award for her courageous and decisive action this past March.

The Burk's Falls fire department is also to be congratulated for distributing a pamphlet throughout schools in the area.

This nine-year-old girl had just gone through the public education process in the school system when disaster struck one evening in their family home north of Burk's Falls. Remembering what she had read and what she had been taught, she got the rest of her family members to crawl on their hands and knees to a window on the second floor, whereby they escaped down a TV antenna tower affixed to their house. Her mother, Mrs Sherwood, had no sooner reached the first floor when the entire second floor of the house, the entire house, in fact, became engulfed in flames.

With Terri-Lynn today is her younger sister, Jessie; Mr Allen, the principal of the school; Mrs Colvin, her teacher, and of course her mother, Mrs Sherwood. I would like to congratulate Terri-Lynn on her very courageous, decisive and lifesaving action, one I think we can all learn from.

PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANTS' COMMITTEE FOR SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Jamison: Today I rise to give special notice to the formation of the parliamentary assistants' committee for small business. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology today announced the establishment of a committee of parliamentary assistants for small business. The committee will bring forward the concerns of the Ontario business community and advise the government on new ideas and initiatives in support of small business. I have been appointed chair.

"We are strengthening our government's ability to address the needs of this crucial sector of our economy," the minister stated. "This committee is a first step in that direction. It will give us a dedicated link to the small business community in Ontario."

The committee will begin meetings with the small business community and representative associations before the end of the year. The mandate of the committee is to provide and encourage channels for listening to business owners and associations; to ensure that the Ontario government has a positive, co-ordinated approach to small business; to help ensure that the government's agenda is implemented in a manner sensitive to the success and growth of small business in Ontario; to serve as a liaison among key ministers and ministries related to small business and with caucus; to consider the existing programs for small business and ensure that they are effective, accessible and designed to provide maximum benefit; to develop a process for reviewing existing regulation and screening of new legislation to advise the government on new ideas and initiatives and --

The Speaker: The time has expired.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SKILLS TRAINING / RÉGIME DE FORMATION

Hon Mr Allen: On the first day of this session of the Legislature, this government reiterated its commitments to rebuilding the Ontario economy. This remains our single most important priority.

La relance économique est notre priorité ultime.

Today I am pleased to announce the launch of a key component in our strategy to ensure the prosperity of this province, the restructuring of Ontario's training system. Every day, people and employers in Ontario are making tough transitions. Employers are facing one technological challenge after another. They are under increasing competition. Workers are making tough moves from schools to work, from job to job and from skill to skill.

To make these transitions successfully, to attract and sustain economic investment essential to our province's prosperity, we must make sure Ontario has highly trained women and men able to respond to the challenges of the modern workplace, more jobs for Ontario and a trained worker for every job.

We cannot achieve this overnight, but we must act now. We must act now to ensure that Ontario's training and adjustment systems promote the lifelong learning that lets people upgrade and learn new skills. But we cannot do this within the current system.

Cela ne peut se réaliser du jour au lendemain. Nous devons agir dès maintenant pour que le régime de formation et d'adaptation de la main d'oeuvre de l'Ontario favorise l'apprentissage permanent, c'est-à-dire, un apprentissage permettant aux personnes d'améliorer leurs aptitudes ou d'en acquérir de nouvelles. Mais cela est impossible avec le régime de formation actuel.

Ontario spends much more on training than any other provincial government in Canada, but despite this tremendous investment, despite the best efforts, our current training system is confusing for employers, workers and the unemployed. We have 10 ministries delivering 48 programs.

Dix ministères offrent 48 programmes de formation.

There is serious and costly duplication and overlapping of programs to deal with and a major gap that we have to close now. That gap is the skills gap, the hole into which laid-off workers or the unemployed are continuing to fall because employers already in Ontario or those wanting to invest here cannot find enough skilled workers for the jobs they have to offer. That gap will continue to loom large and menacing unless we address the fundamental problems within our current training system.

We cannot solve these problems simply by changing program guidelines or even by injecting more money. It is time to do some basic rethinking about the way Ontario makes decisions about training and about labour force development. We have begun that basic rethinking. This morning, as Minister of Skills Development, I announced the first step in the implementation of a new training and adjustment system for our province.

It is our government's intention to establish a new training board for Ontario. This new board will be the key mechanism for encouraging more private sector investment in training and skills upgrading. It will also eliminate the overlap and confusion of the current training system by better co-ordinating programs and services and it will enhance access to training and jobs for all Ontarians.

I also released today a paper entitled Skills to Meet the Challenge: A Training Partnership for Ontario, which is to serve as the framework for the final province-wide consultations on the mandate and structure of this new training board.

Preliminary consultations done by this government, by the previous provincial government and by the federal government all confirm that there is strong agreement on all sides for such fundamental restructuring of our province's training system. There is also strong support for the establishment of an autonomous agency to implement this restructuring.

While the provincial government will be responsible for seeing that the training board's initiatives respond to government policies and commitments, the new training board we shall establish will be an autonomous agency and it will be led by representatives from business, from labour, from training providers and from community social action groups.

Cet organisme sera dirigé par des représentants des entreprises, des travailleurs et travailleuses, des fournisseurs des programmes de formation et des organismes d'intervention socio-communautaires.

1350

In the past, we have thought of employers and employees as the only labour market partners, and often the partnership did not work too well. We have reached the stage in our development where we have to work together in new ways. In this training structure, business and labour, as the principal labour market partners, will play the lead role and will work in collaboration with training providers and community groups on the board to give direction to the whole project.

We have decided to share the direction of our new training system with these people, not only because they are best placed to identify and respond to training needs but for other reasons also. First, we want to multiply the ways business and labour will work together to develop more co-operative workplaces and more co-determination across the face of the economy. Second, as a government, our single most important priority is the rebuilding of our province's economy.

Our strategy for rebuilding this province's economy is founded, however, on social justice. We want to see all Ontarians creating and sharing in our prosperity, and this new training structure reflects that principle. Up to now, the design and delivery of training has not benefited those who are unemployed and underrepresented in the workplace to the extent that it should. We have not been successful in helping these people make that crucial transition from training to work.

Because these people will also be represented among the leadership of the new training structure, their training and skills upgrading needs will be met. Those entering the workforce for the first time or those re-entering the workforce after a prolonged absence will now find real opportunities for employment through our training system.

But including these people in our training system is not only a question of social justice; it also makes good economic sense. Why? Because it is estimated that by the year 2000, a full 85% of all new entrants to the labour market will be women, racial minorities, people with disabilities and aboriginal people -- people underrepresented, underemployed or unemployed at this time. If Ontario is to rebuild its economy, if we are to prosper within the Canadian economy, within the world economy, we must invest in the training and skills upgrading of these people. Social justice demands it; our economic wellbeing depends upon it.

Notre bien-être économique en dépend.

The new training system we are announcing today will be the key mechanism for ensuring Ontario's labour development programs are designed, delivered and assessed in the context of our province's economic and social objectives.

On a local level, the new training system will be supported by a network of local labour market boards jointly designated and funded by provincial and federal governments. Like the new province-wide training system, these local boards will also be steered by the four labour market partners I have referred to. Our government, in co-operation with Employment and Immigration Canada and with the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, will be consulting broadly about these local boards in the coming weeks.

The establishment of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board marks a major shift in Ontario's traditional approach to decision-making about training and adjustment. Let me emphasize that in making this radical change, our government is recognizing the crucial role of business, labour, training providers and community social action groups. We want and need their knowhow. We need their experience and their skill in identifying and responding to the training needs of the people they represent.

Within this broad partnership, we shall be relying in particular on the leadership of business and labour. I am confident that we shall see developing here the same new spirit of co-operation that this government is encouraging, not only in training and adjustment, but in labour relations and health and safety in order to build a fair and more productive economy.

We as a government shall of course continue to provide broad policy direction to the new training board and ensure that the board's activities support the government's economic and social objectives.

In training, as in so many other areas today, we must think globally and act locally. The importance of training and skills upgrading to Ontario's people and to our mutual economic wellbeing is an issue that crosses all party lines. In that spirit, I would ask all members of the House for their support in reaffirming and making a success of this exciting new approach to training in our province.

Finally, I want to thank all those who, over many months, have laboured so hard on this project. Several ministries have been involved, but I want particularly to thank the Deputy Minister of Skills Development, Thomas Sosa, and his staff; the Deputy Minister of Labour, George Thomson, and his staff, and the new deputy in charge of the whole OTAB project who, with her staff, has put together endless hours and days in order to bring us to this launch of the new Ontario training and adjustment program in Ontario. I just want to note that deputy Naomi Alboim is in the gallery this afternoon with her father, who is visiting from Montreal.

RESPONSES

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Daigeler: I think it is very clear that everyone in this House and across the province agrees that training and training reform should be a top priority of government, so it is good that finally we see the NDP's plans after more than a year's wait.

When the Premier's Council on technology of the Peterson government recommended the establishment of an Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, it cautioned against this new training structure becoming an elaborate bureaucracy that is even more complicated than the one it is designed to replace.

Unfortunately, I feel the minister is well on his way to falling into this trap. His greatest goal seems to be to satisfy NDP support groups, in particular unionized labour. He tries to cover so much training territory and involve so many special interest groups, his reforms will take at least another year just to get off the ground. By the time the OTAB consultation process is finished, the consultation on local councils initiated and completed, the appropriate legislation introduced, discussed and passed in this House, I am sure we will be well into 1993. Of course, in the meantime, thousands of workers will be left out in the cold. There is nothing whatsoever in this announcement to help workers now.

Also, there is a clear trend, the way I read this document, to minimize the importance of business in training decisions. The OTAB governing body will not be bipartite or even tripartite; it will be quarpartite, if we want to call it that: labour, business, the education community and NDP interest groups euphemistically called in this consultation paper "social action organizations."

On reading the document, I am left with a very unpleasant feeling that the minister thinks everyone understands the training needs except business. A third concern I have is the minister's Utopian faith in the success of consensus building. Sure, it is a great idea in theory, but unfortunately life works differently. The Minister of the Environment believes that people will gladly reduce waste. The Minister of Energy believes that people will turn out the lights to save energy. Now the Minister of Skills Development feels that his four partners will magically and quickly agree on training. All he would have to do is sit on the sidelines and applaud. That is a very naïve optimism. This optimism would be amusing if its failure was not so disastrous for the province's economy.

In conclusion, this paper announces no new programs, no new funding, no new ways to finance public training. All it does is begin a consultation on a cumbersome and overly comprehensive management structure for training. In other words, at a time when we have record numbers of unemployed, record numbers of bankruptcies and record numbers of people on welfare, all the minister can come up with is consultation.

1400

Mr Phillips: Just to add a couple of thoughts, this is a major part of the government's economic recovery program, and just so everyone is aware, I think the budget of this autonomous agency is likely to be in the $1-billion to $2-billion range. Something we will be looking at carefully is what we call the governance of this, who is going to manage it and on what basis, and as we look preliminarily at its governance, we do have some concerns.

As I say, we are turning over to an autonomous body one of the most important economic renewal tools at the government's disposal, we are going to give it a budget of $1 billion to $2 billion, and we are going to do that in an environment where we have some major conflict between two of the partners here around the Labour Relations Act. I just think there is a risk that this will bog down and, rather than getting on with the economic recovery, we will embroil ourselves in another battle. We will be watching that carefully.

Mrs Cunningham: It was with interest that I listened to the comments of the member for Nepean. I have been in this House since 1988 and I think this proposal is probably about five years overdue at least. I am happy to see that this government has taken a stab at beginning to solve the training problems and the training challenges in this province.

I think the first concern of all of us while we get on with this project is to make certain that we have jobs and that we have work for our people. In spite of the kinds of things I am going to say right now, I think that is our first priority and we cannot forget it.

I would like to say that although it is long overdue, I am pleased that the government at this time has come forth with some long-range plans, many of which, I am sure the minister will be pleased to know, parallel the recommendations we had in A Blueprint for Economic Renewal and Prosperity in Ontario. I am glad he perhaps perused this document, and I know he took a look at the Hansards for the last three or four years and tried to fit at least some of our hopes and dreams into this document.

I am not naïve, and I know this is a very ambitious undertaking, not only in the size of the OTAB itself but in the regional boards and the local boards. I am somewhat critical, because I think the education/training community is underrepresented, and I hope that if indeed during the public consultations that is one of the observations, the minister will come back and tell us so and perhaps even change the makeup of the board. But I know we are looking very closely at this process because we want it to work. Therefore, I think the minister should take into consideration the statement about the provincial government being responsible for determining the policy framework.

I would say that he knows the apprenticeship training programs in this province do not work, and we have him on record as talking about the ratios, talking about the long time it takes for apprenticeships to get through the program. If that is the responsibility of the government, we want to see those changes coming to this House immediately so that the board can get on with its work, if it is not indeed policy. I am not quite certain what that means.

As I said before, we are looking at eight labour partners, eight business partners, four social action community groups and two education/training deliverers, and I am concerned about that, because I think we have to buy into the college system. They are the deliverers. I would say that during the consultations we should even be reaching out to the school boards, because in fact they have been partners in training in a very different way just in the last couple of years.

When we take a look at the local concerns, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to see that the Ontario government is working very closely with the Department of Employment and Immigration and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board to develop a proposal on jointly designed and funded local boards.

This is most important, because we gave credit -- I think I am right that the minister would agree -- to the federal government for advancing millions of training dollars to this province. We want to make certain that we spend them wisely, that we use our resources in a very efficient way and that we take a look at the delivery problems right now when it comes to duplications right across the province, right across the government, right across all three levels of government -- school boards, colleges and universities and federal-provincial government programs.

I would also like to talk about the scope. I warn the minister that he has been extremely ambitious on this. As he looks at training programs, from basic literacy to numeracy, he should begin his consultations on his own right now with those areas of government that are appropriate, because I believe we could be solving the problems in literacy. We cannot wait for the consultation program. I know the Minister of Education is interested in this. In order to work together and get those programs off the ground now, where in fact they may not directly relate to training and retraining programs, we need to do more of that right now.

With regard to the labour market problems -- I will close on this -- we have never in the history of this province needed the labour market partners more to solve our problems. I have spoken on this issue before. My party has spoken on this issue before. If any government should be able to make that work, this government should. I say this publicly on behalf of our party. We are here to help this whole process work. The minister ought to know that if it is not progressing as we want, we will be the first ones to stand and draw it to his attention.

VISITORS

Hon Mr Rae: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I apologize to the member who I know wants to ask a question, but I ask the two opposition leaders if I could add a word on behalf of the province; I am sure others would. The member for Parry Sound singled out Terri-Lynn Sherwood from Burk's Falls, who is a recipient of the Fire Safety Action Award. I know she is in the gallery. She saved her family's life because of her foresightedness and an awareness of the outbreak of a fire. Sophie Brisson from New Liskeard is here as well. I am sure members would want to join the member for Parry Sound and others in congratulating these people. They were already given a Fire Safety Action Award at a luncheon ceremony today, but I know members of the House would want to join us in congratulating our visitors.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Mancini: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As House leader for the Liberal caucus I rise on behalf of my colleagues. During this fall session of Parliament, a number of my colleagues have risen to bring to your attention the fact that the government makes more statements outside the Legislature than it does inside. After members' statements, the government is allowed, by ministry, to make statements in the House, and therefore the opposition parties and the appropriate critics are in fact allowed to respond. This matter has been brought to your attention on a number of occasions because we believe the consistent and numerous announcements made outside the House are in fact a breach of the rules.

Mr Speaker, on one occasion you chastised the government, I believe properly so, and encouraged its members to make more statements inside the House. I believe the government House leader made a commitment that the government would try to make more of its statements inside the House because the people of Ontario need to know --

The Speaker: Would the honourable member take his seat for a moment.

Mr Mancini: Sir, I am not finished.

The Speaker: The honourable House leader will know that indeed this matter has been brought to my attention. There is nothing out of order. I have also, as the House leader correctly stated, presented the opinion that since the business of the province is centred here in the assembly, that is where statements of policy should properly be made. Everything to this point is certainly within the standing orders, and there is in fact nothing out of order.

Mr Mancini: Mr Speaker, if you would give me another moment or two to finish, I think you would realize what we have been concerned about -- a matter we have raised consistently with you and asked you and the government House leader for help with -- is in fact being ignored. I want to bring to your attention that again today two ministers, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, had the opportunity and time to announce in this building a new program concerning the province's investment in Forintek. I have their announcement with me.

1410

The Minister of Northern Development and Mines is with us in the Legislative Assembly today. She chose not to make this statement in the House where numerous members of our party have an interest in this and want to get either our congratulations to the government or our criticisms of and help to the government on the record.

We have a whole industry, the forestry industry, which is vital to the economic health of this province and we are not given the opportunity to make our case on behalf of that industry. The rules are being flouted.

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat. While I appreciate the concerns he expresses, the member will know there is nothing out of order.

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The last time this matter was raised by our House leader in the House, the Premier sat in his seat, nodded and said he would direct his House leader and his cabinet ministers to make statements in the House. It seems to me that, having had that kind of commitment from the Premier, you, Mr Speaker, could speak to him directly. If he is going to give a commitment in this House, it would certainly be a point of order that he should do what he says he is going to do here for all of us.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole will know that the Speaker's responsibility is to enforce the standing orders as they are printed, not agreements among House leaders.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Beer: My question is to the Premier. Every day we come into this House and face more bad economic news. As welcome perhaps today as the statement around training is, we have to recognize that training without the creation of jobs is as nothing. It is the jobs we require and that is where we expect to see action.

We also recognize that the great concern in the province is the lack of confidence in this Premier and this government in that they will not do anything substantial to really get the economy moving again. Only today we see that bankruptcies have increased: 315 Ontario businesses shut their doors, up 36% from the month before. To date, over 3,000 companies in this province have closed their doors. Standard and Poor's, the New York bond rating agency, has downgraded its assessment of the province's debt.

As was said before, we all believe in a strong social justice system, but we know that depends on the creation of jobs. How will the Premier go about regaining the confidence of business and labour in this province, and is he prepared to come back to this House before Christmas with specific initiatives that are going to lead to the creation of real and meaningful jobs?

Hon Mr Rae: I am sure the member would not want to leave the statement on the record where he says that Standard and Poor's has downgraded its assessment of the province. The fact of the matter is that Standard and Poor's has confirmed the credit rating which it made after the last budget of the province, at the same time as it said it is watching us with respect to what happens in the next budget. Therefore, those are the facts of the situation. I am sure the member would want to make that clear in asking his question.

I do not think there is anybody in this House who does not recognize the seriousness and the difficulty of what we are up against. It is certainly something I will be raising tomorrow in my meeting with the Prime Minister, because I really think this is something which takes national initiative and action.

I note with interest that the federal government is prepared to put some extra moneys into the province of Quebec, which it is announcing today. I am sure the honourable member would agree with me that the Prime Minister could do a great deal for national unity by indicating that the kind of money he is putting into the province of Quebec he is also prepared to put into all the other regions and parts of Canada, which are equally hurting and hurting just as badly and seriously as what is taking place --

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I say with great directness to the member that we have already announced a number of measures. Of course we will be announcing more, but the major announcement this government makes with respect to job creation is something that is going to come with the next budget.

Mr Beer: If the track record of the first budget means anything, we certainly are not going to be looking to the next budget in terms of any jobs being created.

In answering, the Premier managed to skirt around the question by playing with semantics with respect to the Standard and Poor's analysis. Let the Premier look at the newspapers today. He will see exactly what they meant. It is not as strong as it was before and it is still going downhill.

The point to the Premier is that we have said again and again it is a question of confidence. Earlier this month, a group of business people representing various businesses, large and small, came to the Premier with a proposal to bring business, labour and government together around dealing with the key issues facing the economy. As the Premier knows, this was the Project Economic Growth group. They put forward a series of positive, constructive proposals and asked to come together with him and labour to work on them.

This province needs to know what the Premier is prepared to do with the business community and how he is prepared to bring it in. They want to be part of those discussions. What is his response to the proposals they made? Is he prepared today to indicate clearly that he is ready to go forward with business and labour in a comprehensive task force to really address the economic problems we face and not continually put it off on to the federal government? We want to see what the province is prepared to do.

Hon Mr Rae: First, the Premier's Council has been established. That is one very important forum where we are bringing together the partners in the economy, the business leaders, people from the labour movement, people from our universities and people from the community. I am quite positive about the suggestions that have been made by a number of business leaders with respect to the need for a more positive relationship between business and labour. That is something we as a government have been trying to foster very much and something we are very supportive of.

There are a number of groups out there which we are now trying to bring together to deal with a number of initiatives -- the training initiative, which has been referred to, labour relations reform, worker ownership plans -- we plan to bring forward in terms of basic questions around the restructuring of the economy.

I welcome the suggestions from the business leadership. I have met with literally dozens, indeed hundreds, of people from the business community over the last while, trying to improve the climate. We are going to continue to do that.

Mr Beer: In effect the Premier's answer indicates just how clearly he has lost control of the situation and is incapable or unable, all of the above, to deal directly with the issue. The proposal that has come from business is that we need a comprehensive approach to these problems. The Premier rhymes off a whole series of issues. What he must recognize is that they are all related. He cannot have the labour relations proposals examined over here and others over there. They are linked. We have seen clear analysis of the labour relations package which shows there will be dramatic loss of jobs and money to the Ontario economy.

Is the Premier prepared to bring together, in response to the Project Economic Growth proposals, a group of business, labour and government to deal specifically with the issues raised in its letter to him of November 1? Is he prepared to commit to that kind of approach to the problems we face and not divide and split all these problems off but come to grips with them in one task force?

Hon Mr Rae: I fully share the view the member has expressed that all these issues are related. I argue that other issues are involved. We cannot just ignore the policies of the federal government. If the member talks to people in the paper industry, which I am going to be doing this afternoon, they will say very clearly that the question of the dollar, the question of interest rates and the question of trade policy, which are under the federal jurisdiction, are involved as well. We cannot ignore these things.

I would say to the honourable member my response to the initiative he has described, and other initiatives, because that is not the only one coming forward, is very positive. I guess my short answer would be that of course we want to work with all sectors of the economy in a comprehensive way, and we are determined to do that.

Mr Beer: We appreciate the rhetoric, but what we would like to see is some specific action.

1420

HEALTH CARE

Mr Beer: My second question is also to the Premier. It concerns the continuing musings of the Deputy Minister of Health. While we have concerns about where the economy of this province has been going and is going, we are becoming increasingly concerned about the state of our health care system.

As one reads this interesting interview in the Globe and Mail this morning with the Deputy Minister of Health, one is left with the impression that the government is hell-bent on the Americanization of our health care system. The comments by the deputy minister suggest that doctors should look on the cutbacks in services, on the elimination of services from OHIP, as new business opportunities for doctors.

I wonder if the Premier would be prepared to share with this House, if indeed the Deputy Minister of Health has shared it with him or with the Minister of Health, just what is meant by "new business opportunities for doctors." Does it mean we are going to get rid of the practices currently in place, where doctors will be able to extra-bill? Does it mean some people, those with money, will have access to services that those who do not will not have? Just what is meant by those comments by the Deputy Minister of Health?

Hon Mr Rae: I find it ironic in the extreme to be getting a lecture on extra-billing from members of the Liberal Party. Before the honourable member was elected, we spent a decade in this House getting the Liberal Party to change its stance on extra-billing and, in the accord, getting the Liberals to get rid of it. That is one area in which we do not want to hear any lectures from the honourable member.

I would say to the honourable member that the foundation of his question, suggesting that this party, which has had an association with universal medical care for a generation, is interested in the Americanization of the health care system, is absolutely preposterous, and he knows it full well.

Mr Beer: I think the answer of the Premier underlines the incredible irony about what is coming out of the Ministry of Health these days concerning the government's policy. It is fascinating to me to note that the Deputy Minister of Health, who is said to hang in his office portraits of T. C. Douglas and Stanley Knowles, is one who is talking about business opportunities for doctors. The very fact that the Premier rises with, as the former member for Haldimand-Norfolk used to say, that haloism all around him with respect to the program of medicare, makes me that much more nervous when I look at the comments that were made.

I want to ask the Premier again. We do not need the rhetoric, we do not need the lecture about where medicare came from and what it was that his party members did years ago. What we want to know is what the Premier is going to do in the future and what the deputy minister meant when he said there were going to be better business opportunities for doctors. If he did not mean that the government is going to put extra-billing back in or if he did not mean that it was going to find other ways to change the health care system we have so those who have money can afford it and those who do not cannot, what is meant by that statement?

Hon Mr Rae: I would just say very directly to the honourable member that the direction of the health care system as it has been described by the Minister of Health in this House on many occasions is one that has been profoundly affected by the work of the Premier's Council on Health Strategy, which was started, I remind the member, by his government. It was one of the initiatives of the previous government which I happen to think was very sound.

The clear indications are there that we have to keep our health care costs under control. We cannot continue to see health care budgets going up by 10%, 15% and 20% per year. It is simply not possible for us to do that. In order for us to save medicare, in order for us to save universal access and in order for us to make the system work properly, we have to manage it better. That is what this government is determined to do, to try to manage a system that has not been effectively managed for 20 years.

Mr Beer: No one in this House is arguing that we need to manage our health care system better. The issue before us is that the Deputy Minister of Health and the Minister of Health in her statements to the Ontario Hospital Association are talking about the elimination of services.

We want to know whether the government going to be changing the universality of this program. Are they going to be setting out a system that says that if you are a certain age, you cannot have a certain service? Are they going to be playing Big Brother in dictating who can go to the hospital, when and for what kind of service? Whatever happened to the proposals that were being advanced in order to change the way doctors are paid and the way hospitals are organized to provide services? The only thing the government is talking about is eliminating services.

We want to know whether the government is doing that so that doctors have "nice new business opportunities." Are they doing that on the backs of the people who need those services? What is the position of this government with medicare and with the OHIP program that we know in this province?

Hon Mr Rae: The simple reality is that in order to save medicare, we have to manage it better. That is the beginning and end of the argument.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Harris: My question is to the Solicitor General. Yesterday my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville told him that the Ontario Provincial Police Association believes that the safety and the wellbeing of the people of Ontario are in jeopardy.

Given that it is quite common knowledge in this recession that crime is on the increase -- among other reasons is the recession -- and that since April the Solicitor General has had a hiring freeze, could the minister tell us today how many officers have retired since that hiring freeze? Could he tell us how many have been transferred to non-police duties from police duties since that hiring freeze? How many fewer OPP officers policing this province do we have now in the middle of this recession than we had back in April?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Certainly I can undertake to get the member these detailed figures, but let me answer his question in a very specific way.

When the 1991-92 estimates were brought forward and filed by the Ministry of the Solicitor General, with consultation with OPP Commissioner Tom O'Grady, there was an estimate of the number of officers who through attrition would no longer remain with the force and the salary accounts were adjusted accordingly.

One of the difficulties that has arisen is that the attrition that was expected and estimated by the commissioner and the ministry did not occur. In other words, more people stayed on with the force. As a result of that and other like circumstances, they were not able and have not been able this fiscal year to meet their budget estimate.

As a result, the commissioner engaged in certain cost-cutting or expenditure control measures all around the fringes, not to impact on public safety or service but to achieve the budget estimate. There have been no cuts in that budget.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Is that sufficient? Thank you.

Mr Harris: I do not think it is detailed numbers. I would have thought the head of the OPP would know how many fewer officers he has today than April, how much his force is reduced. That is a pretty simple, straightforward question. I do not think he even knows how they allocate officers, but maybe he will surprise me.

I want to go back to that budget the Solicitor General talks about, because the priority which his government gives policing in this province is shameful. Operating expenditures for the OPP, the money that is used to put police officers on the streets, went up 1% last year. The government's overall budget increased more than 13%, more than $6 billion, yet he found $6 million, or $30 million less than inflation, to help fight crime on our streets at a time of growing crime statistics. I believe this is a matter of priority.

As the Solicitor General does not know any of the specifics, where was he when the budget was being developed? Where was he when he should have been advocating for the OPP? Where was he when he should have been at the cabinet table fighting to make sure we could even maintain the level of policing we had in Ontario before the budget was brought in?

1430

Hon Mr Pilkey: I think I was over at the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. Notwithstanding that, as I indicated to the leader of the third party, the estimates brought forward by the Ministry of the Solicitor General with, I believe, the concurrence of Commissioner O'Grady, were approved and deemed to be appropriate to provide the necessary levels of funding and staffing requirements. But with the evolution through the year of that budget, attrition did not take place, many other people have stayed with the force and therefore the estimates were not met. As I indicated in the initial response, it has been an attempt to contain those costs within the approved budget estimates. It was not a result of any carrying on behalf of the minister with respect to the funding received last year by the OPP.

Mr Harris: Nearly every member of my caucus has severe police shortages in his or her riding. In Simcoe West, officers were forced to put in place a Band-Aid solution to cover the lack of 24-hour policing. The riding of Wellington is desperately in need of additional service from the Guelph detachment. In Dufferin-Peel, officers are now using their personal vehicles to respond to calls. Our police forces are doing everything they can, but without support from this government the people of Ontario are at risk, and at increasing risk, as every month goes by. How many more calls will go unanswered across this province before the Solicitor General responds to this crisis in policing in our province?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I am not aware that any calls are going unanswered. I believe the OPP officers of this province are a dedicated group of individuals who have served their detachments in this province well. I have indicated the fiscal difficulties the OPP have had with their previously adopted budget and I fully understand the concerns they are expressing relative to the fiscal concerns this province now faces. I can assure the member opposite that I will be very diligent indeed in ensuring that the appropriate funds are there for the OPP officers of this province who serve the public so well.

Mr Harris: The minister should try fighting a little bit. He will not even go and ask.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Harris: My second question is for the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the Worker's Compensation Board. I was reading my clippings this morning from Queen's Park. Page 5 said, "Labour Leaders Weep for Recession Victims." Page 6 said, "Relatives, Pals 'Pig Out' in Union Jobs." Does the minister have an explanation for this?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: First, I want to let the member know that I am aware of the quality of the work done by the Workers' Health and Safety Centre, which is the story he is referring to. I also want the member to know that I have no direct responsibility for the operation of the centre. The Workers' Health and Safety Centre is run by the safety agency, which is allocated funds from the WCB. The agency is a schedule 3 agency and is required to operate at arm's length from the government. It is subject to Management Board guidelines and an annual independent audit. In light of the allegations that have been made, I want him to know I will also ask the agency to review the hiring practices of the centre.

Mr Harris: The hiring practices of the centre seem to be pretty clear to me. I do not know what the minister has to review. Names like Pilkey, Wilson, Hargrove, Upshaw -- $57,000 a year right out of school, or some not quite finished university and some with no experience. These are the names showing up for $50,000-a-year jobs.

The article continues, "Pilkey rejected the suggestion that attractive, publicly funded jobs should be advertised to create opportunity beyond the immediate personal circle of union leaders." Here is his quote: "You want us to hire people off the street, people we don't even know?"

Does the minister agree with those hiring practices?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: As I think I said to the member, my ministry obviously wants to maintain the quality of the work that is done at the centre, and at the same time we will take steps to prevent any improper hiring practices.

Mr Harris: I heard this same minister for years in this Legislature say to the Minister of Labour responsible for WCB: "You're the minister responsible, you have the power, you have the authority. What are you doing about it?" Now he wants to wash his hands.

"Wilson said hiring trusted family and friends is 'part of union culture.'" These are public jobs from WCB. Maybe that is how the union spends its funds. These are not union funds. These are WCB funds, which come from the payroll tax of the people of this province.

"Wilson said he's heard the rumblings about nepotism but no one has tackled him head-on." Why has the minister responsible not tackled him head-on about this nepotism, and when is he going to do so, as he has not to date done it?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am pretty sure the leader of the third party does not want to give us the total authority to run the agency. That is the purpose of a level 3 agency. I can also tell him that I have twice this afternoon said we will ask the health and safety agencies to look at the hiring practices. I am not sure what else he wants.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Mr Bradley: I have been reading some of the old speeches by the Premier. They are always very interesting. I am reading one from March 1984. As a preamble to my question, I will quote the following: "I find it ironic. This is a government which is literally doddering into the 1980s and 1990s, which is attempting to revive ruling by sloth, by neglect, by polls, by advertisements, by the oldest and phoniest kinds of con games."

In view of the Premier's past observations on the kind of cynical manipulation his government is engaged in today -- a political committee to promote the NDP paid for by the public of the province, polls paid for by the taxpayer and kept privy only to the NDP and no one else -- in view of this and his past statements, would the Premier end the sham of his political committee and stop buying public opinion polls to be used for the political benefit of the NDP?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me respond directly to the honourable member and say that I do not recall when he was Minister of the Environment his expressing visceral opposition to the fact that the government of which he was a member, that the cabinet of which he was a member for five years, was polling. I would say to the honourable member that basic market research carried out by various ministries is something this government engages in, but certainly not to the extent engaged in by previous governments.

1440

Mr Bradley: My whole point is that the Premier was supposed to be different. He was the angel. He was Bob Rae, and the NDP had different political ethics. That is why I asked this question.

Tomorrow the Premier is meeting with Prime Minister Mulroney. The Prime Minister has special committees and special advertisements. The Prime Minister uses public opinion polls for the benefit of his government. I was going to ask -- perhaps I should -- whether they are prepared to save the taxpayers of Ontario and of Canada money by sharing the results of the public opinion polls with one another, by sharing them with the House of Commons and members of this House. But I would rather have the Premier tell the people how many polls he has commissioned or is in the process of commissioning and whether he will, now that he has been caught in the act, reveal the results of those polls to all members of the Legislature and to the people of Ontario who have paid for those polls out of their pockets.

Hon Mr Rae: The member well knows that the tradition in this place is that the results of public opinion polls are tabled by the government. The results of polls taken by this government will be tabled by this government, as was done by the Liberal government, and that is exactly what we will do. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would want to be fair in this regard.

TORONTO ISLANDS COMMUNITY

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I want to ask a question on the Toronto Islands issue. This minister has suggested that this was the best and fairest deal for all parties concerned. Can he tell me why this is a fair deal for Metropolitan Toronto, when he has expropriated 40 acres of land and the buildings on it, which it owns, which it went to the Supreme Court of Canada to prove it owned, when he is stealing 40 acres and giving back 23 acres, 11 1/2 of which he would not even have to pay for under that scenario because the Metro Toronto Residents Action Committee would pay for the other half?

Running a ferry service in the winter to the islands is going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Can the minister tell me what is fair about that? He is going to have to provide policing and ambulance services on that island year-round. That is going to cost the taxpayers in Metro thousands and thousands of dollars. What is fair about that? Will he tell me about the millions spent by Metro upgrading that park for park purposes? Are they going to be recompensed? No. What is fair about that?

Can the minister tell me why he says this is a good deal for Metro? If he cannot tell me, why did he make the deal?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think there were about 15 questions there all rattled off in quite a short period. I find it very curious. The way the member describes the arrangement that is being made would lead people to believe there are not even people who live on the islands. There are 650 people who live on the islands. If the Tory party is telling us that those people should have their homes bulldozed and not have a place to live in this community, that is not an approach I support.

Back when they were in government and Larry Grossman represented that riding, he understood the islands issue. He understood there was a need to preserve a community on that island, and that is a principle that I endorse and this party endorses.

Mr Stockwell: I rattled off 15 questions and he could not answer one of them. What is the point? Let's talk about those people on the island. Does the minister realize that since we have been keeping track in Metro, since 1974, well over 60% of the original tenants have left? Does he realize that for 103 people the property has changed once, 50 have changed twice, 13 have changed three times and one has even changed four times? The minister is not protecting the original islanders, he is protecting squatters who moved in when they saw a good deal.

The minister is giving these people a lottery. They have won a lottery. For 99 years at $36,000, it costs $30 a month. Does he know who these people are? These people are lawyers, dentists, doctors and city councillors. These people make a very good income. I have a grandmother who lives in a studio apartment at Islington and Dundas. She spends 10 times this amount and she is on a fixed income.

The Speaker: Could the member place his supplementary, please?

Mr Stockwell: The minister has given these people a lottery. Why does he not tell the people of Metro exactly who he is protecting? He is protecting doctors, lawyers, dentists, city councillors, etc. Disclose their incomes.

An hon member: How did they vote?

Mr Stockwell: We will find out how they vote.

The Speaker: Would the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Stockwell: Metro Toronto has a right to know who the government has bought off because they voted NDP.

Hon Mr Cooke: This party has had --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Turnbull: Thirty bucks a month.

Hon Mr Cooke: Did the member for York Mills want to make a statement?

The Speaker: The minister will direct his response to the Chair.

Hon Mr Cooke: This party has had a long-standing commitment to the maintenance of the affordable housing stock on the island. That position has been shared by the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party in the past. An important priority for this government was being able to provide a long-term solution for the islands, an issue that has been around for far too long. It was time for government to say that this dispute had to come to an end and a solution had to be found. We have done that.

I also point out that I think the outgoing mayor of the city of Toronto said it best when he was quoted this morning as saying that he thought the provincial decision was a reasonable one to settle this long-time dispute. That is what we have done. The member wants to take the extreme position that he takes, but we are getting used to extreme positions from the member for Etobicoke West.

ONTARIO HYDRO RATES

Mr Malkowski: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. As members know, power is produced and sold centrally by Ontario Hydro and is then distributed to local power authorities. My constituents in York East are concerned about the increase in hydro rates. Are there any measures in place to prevent the local hydro commissions from raising rates in an arbitrary and excessive fashion? If so, what are those measures; and if not, why not?

Hon Mr Ferguson: The member should know that Ontario Hydro has the right to approve all municipal electrical utility hydro rate increases. They must be approved by Ontario Hydro. If Ontario Hydro believes it is in the interests of the municipality, it can set the rate itself. All rates must be approved by Ontario Hydro. I understand the member's concern and I believe that in East York the hydro rates will be increasing at a rate of about 11.5% this year.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Offer: I have a question for the Minister of Health. It was to my great dismay that I learned of a constituent in my riding whose child had been sexually assaulted and had been assessed as needing counselling. This mother had been told that her child will not receive this counselling for six months. This was as a result of backlogs in hospitals and treatment centres.

I researched this matter and was informed that the average waiting list is six months for children under 14 years of age who are the victims of sexual assault. The minister will quickly understand that in such a period of time, one of two things will happen. The first is that the child who needs that help will not, after such a time period, go for the help. The second is that after such a period of time, further problems will develop.

This matter has been a result of a backlog in hospitals and a variety of centres, not only in the Peel region but indeed in York and Toronto. What actions is the minister prepared to announce today so that this need is immediately resolved?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member knows that to phrase a question in terms of what actions I am prepared to announce today is a difficult thing. What I will say to him is that in terms of the kinds of reviews we are having of hospital budgets for this year, we have clearly indicated we want to see psychiatric beds protected. In answer to previous questions, I have indicated that we have some problems with hospitals around some of the protected programs. The member's question goes far beyond that in terms of special programs directed at children.

I am very concerned by the information he brings to my attention. I can only say to him that I will undertake to go back and try to determine where there may be services available or what needs to be addressed as we go through our estimates and address the very serious problem he raises.

1450

Mr Offer: I thank the minister for the response, but it is just not good enough. In fact, what has happened is that the Hospital for Sick Children has this problem, the C. M. Hincks Treatment Centre has this problem, the hospitals in the Peel region have this problem, the Peel Children's Services has this problem and areas and centres in Halton and York all have this problem. Two levels of care are being developed as a result of the minister's inaction.

First, those parents who have the financial resources to be able to go to the private sector and get their children the immediate help that is required are able to do so, but parents who do not have those financial resources are not able to do so. I am very concerned about the minister's response today, and I am doubly concerned when I read in the paper today that the Deputy Minister of Health talks about new business opportunities.

I hope, with respect to the minister with her response today and her deputy minister's response, this is not going to be one of those new business opportunities. I believe that children under the age of 14, children whatever their age, who are the victims of sexual assault, who require help and counselling, should get it immediately.

Discussions and consultation and looking at the problems in the future are just not good enough. These children require this service now. What I want to ask the minister is what she is prepared to do now, what her government is prepared to do now. It is no longer permissible for her to wash her hands of this, for her to say it is another minister's responsibility or for her to say it is something that is going to be taken under consideration. Children need that help now and we want to know what the minister is going to do today.

Hon Ms Lankin: Again, I could rise to the bait in terms of the way the member phrases this, but I think the issue is very serious and I do not intend to deal with him in that way.

What I would like to say to the member is that there is a variety of funding sources currently in place. The member opposite knows that our government, in addition to programs that had been established by his party when it was in government, is spending more money on sexual assault than has ever been dedicated before in a provincial government.

The member opposite talks about specific health-related services, and I think in fact his --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: What I have said to the member, and I will follow up again, is that I will undertake to review the connection between those dollars and the health services.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Burlington South.

Hon Ms Lankin: I try, Mr Speaker, but there is a Pavlovian response going on. When I stand up and start to speak, the member opposite starts to -- well, you know what he starts to do.

The Speaker: Will the minister direct her comments to the Chair, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: To the member who asked the question, I will certainly undertake to resolve the question that I think is in his mind with respect to the two ministries involved in this and the delivery of services in his area and across the province, and attempt to give him an answer that is a satisfactory one.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr J. Wilson: My question is also to the Minister of Health. Earlier this week, the Provincial Auditor confirmed what I and my colleagues have been telling the minister all along, that hospitals are being forced to cut beds randomly, without government direction and without any overall assessment of the health care needs of Ontario as a whole.

The Ontario Hospital Association has estimated that some 3,292 beds will be closed by March of next year, and St Michael's Hospital announced yesterday another 58 beds closed and 67 jobs lost.

The minister has told us that she is working with the Ontario Hospital Association, the hospitals and the district health councils to come up with an overall, comprehensive management plan for our health care system. Given that thousands of hospital beds are now being closed and have been closed, given that irreparable harm is being done to the system, would it not make sense for her to put a stop to these closures until such time as she is able to bring to this House her comprehensive management plan?

Hon Ms Lankin: First of all, the member said the Provincial Auditor's report confirmed that in fact beds were being closed without any direction or any consistency or involvement by the provincial government. The report did not confirm that, and I would appreciate having that debate separate.

The member's question is specifically related to where we are developing our plan for next year's budget. I met again this morning with the council of hospitals here in Toronto and with members of the district health council.

Mr J. Wilson: They said there has been no prior approval of the bed closures.

Hon Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, if the member would be quiet, I could answer his question, as opposed to his asking additional questions in the meantime.

Specifically, today I met with the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto, as one example of a region, with the district health council present, and talked about the need for the regional co-ordination as we move through this downsizing that is occurring. Some of that downsizing is directly related to 10 years of a move to ambulatory and outpatient care and an excess of beds in terms of acute care. Some of it in the future will be related to a reallocation of priorities of health care spending. I think those two things need to be separated, and the member's question does not adequately do that.

Mr J. Wilson: The auditor very clearly pointed out that the Ministry of Health has been negligent in monitoring hospital bed closures. I can only conclude that there are many communities in Ontario where health care is in serious jeopardy as a result of the ad hoc and random cutting. I speak on behalf of my own community in Simcoe county. I met yesterday with administrators in Toronto who expressed similar concerns. Hospital beds are continuing to close at random. There is no management plan in place and the minister has just told us, through lack of an answer, she is not willing to put a moratorium on further bed closures until she brings back a comprehensive management plan.

The Minister of Health and the Premier speak eloquently about universality, but the only thing universal about the minister's management of the health care system is that she is universally closing health care beds across this province. The minister cannot continue to manage Ontario's health care system with one eye open. The minister is giving lipservice to universality. I want to know what she is doing to assure all the people of Ontario they will have universal access to quality health care in this province.

Hon Ms Lankin: The member once again needs to divide the issue with respect to the monitoring of budgets and the implication of budgets from the planning for the future of the system at this point in time. This year we are reviewing the projections various hospitals have made -- some for surpluses, some for budgets -- with those individual hospitals and we are reviewing their proposed plans. In some areas those involve bed closures; in some areas they involve other kinds of realignment of services.

With respect to where bed closures have been announced, as the member has indicated, and perhaps not enacted, I have asked that meetings take place to try to have a regional co-ordination of that. Those meetings are in fact taking place with respect to the Toronto East General and Orthopaedic Hospital and the Toronto General Hospital, the sort of administrators the member may well have spoken to in the last number of days.

In terms of our future projection and planning for the system and assurance of high-quality health care to people in our communities, we have pulled together the parties in the system. They are working together to plan for that direction. We have a hospital funding review going on. We have district health councils, labour and the Ontario Hospital Association involved in that. Quite frankly, for the first time we have the partners in the system acknowledging that reform is necessary and acknowledging the direction we have been embarking upon is the correct direction. I think the kind of remarks the member makes only spread panic. It does not help the process of planning.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Fletcher: My question is for the Minister of Labour. In my riding of Guelph, the newsroom staff at the Daily Mercury have been walking the picket line for the past several weeks. They have been trying for more than a year to negotiate a first contract with the Thomson Newspapers corporation. The newsroom staff say it is the quality of the newspaper and the local news coverage that are the major issues in this strike. They also tell me they are very angry that instead of bargaining with the workers, the company is paying replacement reporters large bonuses, almost one week's salary in some cases, to file stories during this strike.

They also tell me they are angry that while Thomson cannot seem to invest money in a better newspaper, the company is spending money on security guards and portable computers so that replacement workers do not have to cross the picket line. They are also angry because the police officers in my riding are being used at taxpayers' expense to escort delivery vans across the picket line. It puts the police force in my riding and the picketers in a difficult spot.

Are the proposals outlined in the Minister of Labour's recently released discussion paper going to address such issues as replacement workers and the police on picket lines?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The question is good and timely in view of the consultation that will be going on. The proposal we have outlined for public discussion is designed to respond to flashpoints and confrontation in the collective bargaining process, such as the one just outlined. The proposal would restrict the use of replacement workers to the use of onsite managers and supervisors and therefore would help prevent violence and frustration on the picket line, confrontations which occur when replacement workers are brought in to do the job.

1500

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT

Mr Ruprecht: I have a question for the minister responsible for the provincial anti-drug strategy. A few days ago she released a report, Caring for Each Other: The People of Ontario Respond to Alcohol and Drug Treatment Problems.

One of the major recommendations in this report reads, "Access to treatment in the United States should be phased out in proportion to the expansion of provincial treatment facilities." In other words, you do not cut off people from their treatment and throw them on to the streets, where they support their drug habit by turning to crime.

The minister is responsible for the provincial anti-drug secretariat. Why would she tolerate a situation where there is not sufficient day treatment, there are not sufficient beds, there is not sufficient follow-up care? Her course of action in asking the district health councils for more proposals when she already has on her desk, gathering dust, proposals that are over a year old, is inadequate.

Will the minister today accept my proposal, since she loves proposals so much, to send to her office the hundreds and, I would submit to her, thousands of miserable people who are unable to get treatment?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member and I had a conversation about this topic yesterday, and it seems to me he failed to understand the points that were made. I thought as he walked away that in fact he had understood, so it is interesting.

We redirected money out of savings from restricting out-of-country expenditures and increased expenditures on treatment and access to services here in Ontario by $9.7 million. He speaks primarily of $4 million of that which is targeted for treatment programs. Members will remember the rest of the money was targeted towards setting up a drug registry, assessment programs and detox programs. He says we should just go ahead with other proposals that are out there on the table.

The treatment programs have specifically targeted those communities that were experiencing the highest rate of out-of-country referral, and in order to save money in administration and ensure that more of that money is going directly to the people who require those services, we asked DHCs to review the services that are in place that could be quickly expanded as opposed to setting up new services with duplication of administration costs. I think that is very fiscally wise and it also means more money gets directly to the people who need the treatment.

Mr Ruprecht: While I have no personal problems with the minister -- in fact I like her -- obviously that cannot be the major point. No matter how much she wants to explain to me personally, the point really is that there are literally -- and she knows the figures, I will tell her in a minute -- hundreds and thousands of people out there who are suffering from drug addictions whom she is forcing, with her inadequate policies and her inaction, into a life of crime, and obviously they are unable to get treatment.

She knows the figures. What are the figures? Some 24,000 people are going to be treated in 1991 in Ontario. What is the comparison in terms of beds in Ontario and other jurisdictions? Ontario has the lowest capacity of beds of six comparable jurisdictions. The point is simply this: Instead of creating treatment facilities, she goes around and asks for a drug registry program and more proposals and more proposals.

The Speaker: Will the member place his supplementary, please.

Mr Ruprecht: We are asking the minister today to stand up and do something. What I simply want to know in conclusion, and all of us would agree with it obviously, is when she is going to begin to treat the addicts before many more of them die on the loading docks and on the streets of Toronto. It is a crisis situation and she has the responsibility. We expect her to act and to act today.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: I have to say that is one of the most irresponsible characterizations of what is going on in this province I have heard from the members opposite. Quite frankly, we have put $9.7 million of new money into drug rehabilitation programs.

The member castigates the idea of setting up a registry of drug services. He should read the document he has in his hand that flows from the earlier report commissioned by his government that says it is one of the most critical pieces of action a government could take in order to be able to co-ordinate services across this province and ensure that people get placement.

We have increased detoxification services. We have increased assessment and referral. We have increased treatment. The dollars we can spend in Ontario compared to the huge costs we were paying for a relatively small number of people to receive treatment out of country in the US profit-driven system is a tremendous increase to services here. At the same time, we have not cut off people's access to needed services out of the country if they cannot receive them in a timely fashion here. The member is just absolutely wrong.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr B. Murdoch: My question was going to be to the Premier, but since he has left, I guess I will have to send my question up to the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

There seem to be two sets of standards in this area. We have the greater Toronto area; then we have the rest of rural Ontario. What I am talking about is agriculture. I do not know whether the minister is aware of Springdale, a new subdivision that is being built right now just north of Toronto. I will send this material over to the minister. It is being built on 4,000 acres of the best farm land we have here in Ontario. Just to show that, I have some things for the Premier, and I am sorry he is not here. I will give them to the Minister of Agriculture and Food to give to the Premier for me.

This is a keepsake. He must keep this, because this is soil from these 4,000 acres, and there is not any more of it left. It is being paved over and built over. I will give this to the page to give to the minister. This is some of the best farm land, and to prove that I want to show him something else.

The Speaker: Do we also have a question while you are at it?

Mr B. Murdoch: Yes, I have a question here. I want to know what the two sets of standards are. It is one of the best areas in Ontario, and here is some of the corn grown on that area that will grow there no more. Some of the best heat units are in this area, yet 4,000 acres are being --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr B. Murdoch: My question to the minister is, why are there two sets of standards, one for the greater Toronto area and one for the rest of rural Ontario?

To show you that the rest of rural Ontario does not have this land, I have something else, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Would the member complete his question.

Mr B. Murdoch: I have a stone here which comes from Grey county. This stone, with many others, is what we have to have.

The Speaker: Would the member please complete his --

Mr B. Murdoch: I also want to tell you, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: Order. I give the member one brief opportunity to complete his question.

Mr B. Murdoch: My question is, why are there two sets of standards for agricultural land?

Hon Mr Buchanan: This is one moment I wish the Premier was here with us.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Buchanan: The corn is much better than the corn they had down in Essex-Kent where they had drought.

On the question of double standards, as I understand the question, I stand to be corrected, but I believe this land the honourable member is talking about was rezoned about 10 years ago. As I understand it, it certainly has not been taken out of agriculture in terms of zoning purposes since we have come to government.

We have proof in the Niagara area, in the Ottawa region and in the member's own region -- and that is probably the major reason he is bringing this question forward -- that this government feels very strongly about preserving agricultural land and not allowing it to be rezoned. Unfortunately this land was rezoned I believe about 10 years ago, and we as a government are committed to not letting that happen in future, including in the member's riding of Grey.

1510

Mr B. Murdoch: What I am hearing is that it is okay if it is well planned, which this is. It is okay to take good agricultural land, so the farmers down in the Niagara area should be getting their land well planned now so they can take that out and not have to go to an Ontario Municipal Board hearing. This is fine if it is the way we are going to operate. If you plan it well, it does not matter. They do not seem to care. As long as you plan the area, it is okay to take good agricultural land. That is basically what they have said.

There are still two standards, one for the greater Toronto area and one for the rest. What we also have in this 4,000 acres are swamps, bogs and wetlands. In Grey county and outside the greater Toronto area, they are called ANSIs, that is, areas of natural and scientific interest. They are also environmentally sensitive areas. Maybe the minister will not understand that. He may want to put this question to the Minister of Natural Resources.

The Speaker: Would the member place his supplementary, please.

Mr B. Murdoch: Yes, I will get to it. But in the greater Toronto area they must just call them holes because they just fill them in. I picked this cat's-tail out of the last hole they filled in. The brothers and sisters of this cat's-tail have all been buried. It is the only one left so I guess we have two sets of standards again. Outside the greater Toronto area, do not go near ANSIs. I want to know what the two sets of standards for ANSIs are.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I am very pleased that the member has raised these issues. I remember earlier in this House he was concerned about my colleagues the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of the Environment, who were concerned about saving agricultural land up in his area. The member is obviously now concerned about saving wetlands and ANSIs across the province. I hope he continues to support our government in trying to preserve wetlands and ANSIs. We do not have a double standard. As I said earlier, we intend to have a uniform policy across the entire province.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Hon Mr Ferguson: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Earlier this week the member for Lanark-Renfrew made a comment in the House, and I am sure he would want to correct the record. It had to do with Ontario Hydro's free lightbulb program. He asked me at the time why this product was being manufactured in Quebec. To set the record straight, and I am sure he would want to know this, in fact one third of the lightbulbs are being manufactured in Quebec. The rest are being manufactured here in plants in Oakville and London.

The Speaker: The Minister of Energy does not have a point of privilege. Normally members rise to correct their own record, not someone else's.

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Basically on that point, it was apparent the minister should have stood in his place and corrected his own record that he was ignorant of these facts when he was asked the question by the member for Lanark-Renfrew. He still has the opportunity to correct the record about his ignorance of the very ministry he is responsible for.

The Speaker: The member for Burlington South will know I just spoke to the very point of order he raised.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have a point of order under sections 95(a) and 95(d) of the standing orders of the assembly relating to the response to questions that are placed in Orders and Notices in writing to the ministries. On October 14, I placed as number 750 on the question list an inquiry of the Minister of Health relating to details on the current financial status of each of the 224 Ontario hospitals. On that date, I also placed a question to the Minister of Health relating to the financial status of Ontario's nursing homes. The 14-day period required under these standing orders expired about two weeks ago. I still have received no response. Please, I want you to make a decision in relation to the point I have raised.

The Speaker: The member for Halton Centre appears to have a valid point of order. I will be pleased to examine the matter further and report back to her.

PETITIONS

LANDFILL SITE

Mr Offer: I have a petition signed by a number of residents surrounding the Britannia landfill site expressing their concern about the action taken by the Premier and the Minister of the Environment, and I affixed my signature.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mrs Cunningham: I have a petition signed by 70 concerned citizens from the Huntsville area. It reads as follows:

"As an Ontario taxpayer, I request additional information on the French Language Education Governance Advisory Group report tabled in the Ontario Legislature on Thursday, October 3, 1991, and the impact this will have on public education.

"I am an interested party and I feel that there has not been sufficient information made available to myself and the public at large.

"I therefore demand an extension to the November 29 deadline to review this report and submit my comments to the Ministry of Education. This will enable myself and other people to become more informed on this issue."

A number of cards have been signed by individual members from the Huntsville area. I have added my name to this petition and I will table it.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr O'Connor: I have a petition signed by 128 residents in my riding with concerns around social services. I have signed my name to it.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr Offer: I have a further petition from residents surrounding the Britannia landfill site, again expressing their deep concern about the actions of the Premier and the Minister of the Environment in expanding the site without the benefit of any public consultation in its expansion. I have affixed my name to it.

I have a further petition signed by a number of residents, again around the Britannia landfill site in the city of Mississauga and the region of Peel, expressing their concern to the Minister of the Environment and the Premier over the expansion of the site without any public consultation. I have affixed my name to it.

Just as an aside, each sheet is a single petition, all of which are fully signed by residents around the Britannia landfill site.

I have a further petition signed by concerned residents surrounding the Britannia landfill site. This petition is to the Minister of the Environment and the Premier. The people who have signed this petition express their concern with the actions of the Minister of the Environment and the Premier in attempting to expand the site of the Britannia landfill site without any public consultation. I have affixed my name to this petition.

I have a petition signed by a number of residents who live in an area around the Britannia landfill site in the city of Mississauga and the region of Peel. This petition expresses their concern to the Minister of the Environment and the Premier over the government's expansion of the Britannia landfill site, the regional landfill site, without the benefit of any public consultation into the need or effect of such expansion. I have affixed my name to this petition.

1520

I have a further petition. I am glad that the Minister of the Environment has now come into the House. I hope the Minister of the Environment will recognize the extreme nature of the concern around the Britannia landfill site. This petition is signed by residents around the Britannia landfill site. What they are doing by signing this petition is expressing their concern at the actions by the Minister of the Environment and the Premier in attempting to expand the Britannia landfill site without any public consultation, without any opportunity to be heard and to hear the concerns about the safety of such a site. I sign my name to such petition.

I have a further petition signed by a number of residents around the Britannia landfill site.

Hon Mr Cooke: He sounds like a total lawyer; he says the same thing time and time again.

Mr Offer: The government House leader is interjecting. I thought those would be out of order, but maybe there are new rules in this Legislature.

Mrs Caplan: Interjections are only out of order for members of the opposition.

Mr Offer: I see, but I think members of the government should recognize that those people who live in the area surrounding the Britannia landfill site are deeply concerned about the expansion of such a site without benefit of any public consultation.

This is a further petition signed by residents expressing their concern to the Minister of the Environment and the Premier, who are attempting through Bill 143 to expand the Britannia landfill site without people being able to input into the decision, without being able to voice their concerns about such expansion. I affix my signature to this petition.

I have a petition signed again by many residents living around the Britannia landfill site.

Let me say it is people not just around the Britannia landfill site but also in areas other than adjacent to this site who are concerned about the expansion of the Britannia landfill site in Mississauga and the regional municipality of Peel without the benefit of any public consultation.

They are expressing their concern to the Minister of the Environment and the Premier, voicing their opinion, their concern that this action is wrong, without their being able to have some input, to consult on the need for expansion and what expansion means to the community around such a site. I affix my name to this petition.

Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker, if I may, I would like to sign the petition.

The Speaker: Perhaps the page would take the document to the member for Oriole so that she may sign it.

Mr Offer: I thank the member for Oriole, because I think this is an issue of concern not just for the people around the landfill site but for many members, certainly on the opposition and third-party side, and a lot of people throughout Ontario. If only we could convince members of the government of the concern that is being raised, and not only by the people in this petition which I am just about to read, Mr Speaker. I see that look in your eye. We hope members of the government will recognize that this is a matter of some deep and grave concern.

This is a petition signed by a number of residents in the area expressing their concern to the Minister of the Environment and the Premier of the province over the attempted expansion, through Bill 143, of the Britannia landfill site without the benefit of any hearings, without the benefit of any consultation as to what such expansion means to the area, to the residents and to the quality of life in that area. I affix my name to that petition.

Mr Ruprecht: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Will you give us permission to affix our names to this important petition as well so that everyone will become aware of the problem?

The Speaker: It is the member for Mississauga North who is in possession of the petitions. If he wishes to distribute those petitions to other members, he is certainly at liberty to do so.

Mr Offer: I thank the member for Parkdale for voicing his concern about the actions of the government, especially around Bill 143.

I have a petition signed by numbers of people who live in the area, certainly in my riding of Mississauga North and around the Britannia landfill site which is located in my riding, expressing their concern to the Minister of the Environment and to the Premier over their attempts to expand the Britannia landfill site without the benefit of any public consultation. I affix my name to the signatures.

When residents and people provide petitions, it is our responsibility and indeed our pleasure to present these petitions. I think this underlines the very deep concern of people around the Britannia landfill site, that so many petitions have been provided to their local member voicing their very deep concern about the expansion of this site through Bill 143 without the benefit of any public consultation, without the benefit of their being able to be heard, without the benefit of listening to local municipal and regional councillors and without acknowledging the work done by the local and regional municipalities for many years.

These people have taken the time and effort, through their signatures on this petition, to express their concern to the Minister of the Environment and to the Premier of the province over their attempts, through Bill 143, to expand the Britannia landfill site, notwithstanding, I remind members, the specific promise made by the Premier and the minister in the last election that there would be no expansion and no new landfill site without a full environmental assessment hearing. I affix my name to this petition.

To members of the House, if there is anyone who also wishes to indicate or raise anything or put forward any petitions, I would certainly be willing to sit down while he or she is able to do so. But in the absence of any other member who has any petitions today, I will continue to read in these petitions, as is my responsibility, in the time permitted according to the rules of this Legislature.

Again, I have a petition signed by residents in the area of the Britannia landfill site who are expressing their concern to the Minister of the Environment and to the Premier of the province over the expansion of the Britannia landfill site, which was slated to be closed and which the government is attempting to keep open without any benefit of public hearings.

These people around the area who have purchased or are in rental properties, according to agreements signed earlier on, are very concerned with the actions of the minister and the Premier, which are really usurping and overriding all previous agreements, and they want to express their deep concern over the actions by the minister and the Premier by signing this petition. I certainly affix my name, not only as a result of the rules of the Legislature but, let it be said, in full support of the concerns of the residents as indicated in this petition.

I have a further petition -- I would like to thank the pages for their help in this regard in taking my petitions to the table officers -- from residents around the Britannia landfill site expressing their concern to the Minister of the Environment and to the Premier of the province over the actions by the minister, the Premier and the government, through Bill 143, in expanding the Britannia landfill site without the benefit of any public hearing and in direct contravention of a promise made to the people of the province during the last election that no such expansion would take place without a full environmental assessment hearing.

These people are voicing their concerns, as is their right through this petition, and I affix my name, not only in accordance with the rules of this Legislature but also in full support of that concern.

I have a further petition signed by residents around the Britannia landfill site expressing concern to the Minister of the Environment and the Premier of the province over the expansion of the Britannia landfill site without the benefit of being able to have any input or any consultation into its expansion, in direct contravention to a promise made by the Premier during the last election. I have affixed my signature to that.

1530

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Brown from the standing committee on general government presented the committee's Report on the Closure of Land Registry Offices in Ontario.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA CHASSE ET LA PECHE

Mr Wildman moved first reading of Bill 162, An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act/Projet de loi162, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la chasse et la pêche.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Wildman: In introducing for first reading An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act, I would like to make a couple of comments. Public attitudes to wildlife have changed significantly since the act was last amended in 1980. Today Ontarians are concerned about the natural environment and interested in the protection of all wildlife species.

The present act focuses on game species. The proposed amendments will expand the act to extend protection to a wide spectrum of wildlife species. We propose changing the name of the Game and Fish Act to the Wildlife and Fish Act to reflect its broader focus. Other areas covered in the proposed amendments include improved hunter and public safety, more control over commercialization of wildlife and expanded opportunities for aquaculture.

I look forward to the support of all members for these amendments, as they have been pending for at least five years.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

Mr Cooke moved first reading of Bill 163, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act/Projet de loi163, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Assemblée législative.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Cooke: This bill simply implements the 3% increase for members of the Legislature, effective April 1, 1990.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 CONCERNANT L'ACCES A L'INFORMATION ET LA PROTECTION DE LA VIE PRIVÉE

Mr Silipo moved second reading of Bill 136, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy/Loi portant modification de certaines lois concernant l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée.

Hon Mr Silipo: I am pleased to introduce for second reading today Bill 136, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy. It provides that a non-disclosure section of the Occupational Health and Safety Act overrides the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The amendment in the bill will allow the Ministry of Labour to receive confidential trade secret information about hazardous products from the federal Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission.

I note that we will be proposing that this legislation go to committee of the whole House in order that we can propose an amendment which will ensure that the non-disclosure provision prevails over any other law and will remove any ambiguity created by subsection 34(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act that allows for disclosure of confidential information as required by law.

Mr Sola: I rise today to announce that we will be in support of this bill. The honourable minister might give his thanks to Susan Swift, a research officer from legislative research, for providing me with all this extensive background to convince me it would be a wise thing to support this bill.

Upon reflection, we see what his predecessor stated when she introduced Bill 136, that the amendment was a technical one necessary to ensure that the workplace hazardous materials information system regulations in Ontario could be effective and that the Ministry of Labour could receive information held by the federal government about trade secrets concerning workplace chemicals.

We applaud the intent. It is nice to see that for a change this government is trying to remove instead of add ambiguity to legislation, especially since it seems to be also following in the footsteps of the Minister of Labour at the time when this party was in power and introduced Bill 79.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe we have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Is there a quorum?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve) ordered the bells rung.

1539

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Mississauga East may proceed with his participation in the debate on Bill 136.

Mr Sola: When the Honourable Bill Wrye introduced Bill 79, he was allowing for an exemption to make known the identity of a material. If such information is judged to be a trade secret, there will still be an obligation to provide information on any hazard that is present. It is nice to see that this technical amendment just redefines it so that it clears up matters a bit more. Looking back to June 22, 1987, when he introduced section 22, he repeated the same thing, providing for an exemption from disclosure for confidential business information validated by a board. We applaud the intent of the bill, and I would just like to try out my French a little bit and say que nous sommes d'accord avec l'intention de ce projet de loi. Merci beaucoup.

Mr Stockwell: I will speak for my party and tell the government that we will support this piece of legislation, because of the open, consultative approach that we take to opposition. We review all pieces of legislation carefully with a seriousness that I think all opposition parties should approach these kinds of pieces of legislation with. We would only wish that the government could learn from our magnanimous gestures and review some of its legislation that it brought forward that is less than consultative and take a leaf from our book, as being a conscientious opposition party that carefully crafts our statements.

The government members should not go losing sleep or holding their breath between those pieces of legislation, but when the government does something right -- and it has taken some 15 months -- we will stand behind them in unison and suggest they have just done something right and we are totally shocked.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Questions and or comments on the member's participation? Seeing none, further debate? Does the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet want to wind up?

Hon Mr Silipo: Mr Speaker, how could I resist? I want to thank my colleagues opposite, the member for Mississauga East and the member for Etobicoke West, for their somewhat kind words. I certainly agree with the member for Mississauga East about the good work done by our legislative research staff. I have had occasion to use their services in the past and always found them to be excellent in the way they provide information to us. I am not surprised, therefore, that the information that was provided to him by them helped him come very quickly to the conclusion that this small but important amendment is important and worthy of his support.

Indeed I am glad to see that the member for Etobicoke West was able to stand up today and acknowledge that this was something the government has been doing right. He may disagree with us on a number of other things, but I think on this one --

Mr Stockwell: Notice I said "right."

Hon Mr Silipo: Right. He agrees with us on that. I am pleased we are able to get this done. As I indicated, at some point we will deal with an amendment to this through the committee of the whole process.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

TEACHERS' PENSION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE RÉGIME DE RETRAITE DES ENSEIGNANTS

Mr Silipo moved second reading of Bill 140, An Act to amend the Teachers' Pension Act, 1989 and the Teaching Profession Act /Loi modifiant la Loi de 1989 sur le régime de retraite des enseignants et la Loi sur la profession enseignante.

Hon Mr Silipo: I am pleased to introduce for second reading the amendments to the Teachers' Pension Act. This is a sound piece of legislation, we believe, representative of the kind of partnership this government wants to continue to foster. The amendments to the Teachers' Pension Act will establish a framework for the Ontario government and Ontario teachers to manage the Ontario teachers' pension plan as full and equal partners. That partnership will start on January 1, 1992.

The legislation provides for equal representation of the province and the teachers on the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board. It gives teachers an equal say in the investment decisions of the pension plan and an equal share of future surpluses or deficits.

It also gives the partners a formal process for negotiating changes to the plan every three years. Changes to benefits and contribution rates will be negotiated as part of this process. If the partners cannot reach agreement on benefits and contributions, these two issues may be submitted to binding arbitration.

I am proud to bring this legislation before the Legislature; it is the result of both partners' commitment to fairness and co-operation. I believe this bill deserves the support of all members and ask that they give it their full consideration.

Mr Beer: I want to rise and join in the debate on Bill 140, An Act to amend the Teachers' Pension Act, 1989 and the Teaching Profession Act, which we will support to have moved to third reading later today.

As the minister and all who have been involved in this particular issue and this debate know, this was a question which exercised considerable time and attention when we were in government. It is important to note some of the questions that came up when this was being debated by the previous government because, while we will be supporting the legislation today, there were some concerns raised at that time around the process of governance and arbitration as well as around the issue of the unfunded liability which I would like to place on the record.

I hope, as Education critic for the Liberal Party, that the agreement the government and the Ontario Teachers' Federation has reached will indeed work well, as my colleague the member for Ottawa-Rideau mentioned in her comments when the bill was first presented to the House. We are particularly pleased that Mr Bouey will be staying on as chair of the pension fund. We believed at the time we appointed him that he was an excellent choice and I think the reaction of both the government and the Ontario teachers to continuing his role as chair indicates this was a wise choice.

I think members will remember that the primary issue before the previous government and the teachers was that around the question of binding arbitration. Governance was also important, but I believe the key issue was how to deal with dispute resolution. At that time, the concern expressed by the previous government was that there really was a responsibility on both parties to come to an agreement, and if you worked out some sort of binding arbitration system this could lead to the need for more binding arbitration rather than forcing the parties to find a way out of whatever the particular impasse was.

That is not to say this is always going to happen or that the parties who have signed this particular agreement are going to act in that way, but it is a concern in any arrangement where there is some binding mechanism. The concern in this case and the one the former Treasurer had was specifically around the fact that these dollars involve public dollars and the government should have the authority to make the final decision over how those dollars are expended, and that a third party through a binding arbitration model would then be able to have funds expended that were not necessarily what the government wanted to do. That was really the point in principle on which the discussions foundered with the previous government.

1550

At the time there were a number of suggestions made as to how we might find a way around that. In the event, the present government continued discussions with the teachers' federation and came forward with the proposal we have in front of us. I think we accept that they have done this in good faith. The concerns are still there, and I wanted to place those before the House. It is certainly our hope that the situation will not arise. We are pleased with the makeup of the commission itself and we hope that will overcome problems that could arise in the future.

I think the other issue that needs to be noted was that at the time of the debate we had set out that there was an unfunded liability and that this had not been covered when the teachers' pension plan was originally brought in in the mid-1970s by the previous Conservative government and that this actuarial deficit had to be covered. For that reason, we proposed that there be changes and indeed that both teachers and the government increase their contributions by 1%.

There was a great deal of discussion at that time as to whether there was any such deficit. I think it is important to note that not only was there adeficit, but the present government and the Ontario Teachers' Federation have agreed and accepted that it is more than was originally thought and that the approach the former Treasurer was taking in trying to ensure that we dealt with that -- we had said we were going to fund the $4-billion liability. That amount is now greater and that has to be funded as well. The concerns we had about the amount and the way in which future decisions might be made through arbitration were concerns that were raised at that time and I think are ones we still need to be aware of.

The process that has been worked out to share that unfunded liability, particularly to share any surpluses or deficits, is one that seems to meet with approval on both sides and with us, in that it will be shared and as we go down the road the teachers will pick up their share of that responsibility, whether it is in a surplus or a deficit position. We think that makes sense.

Concern was raised when the bill was first tabled about retired teachers. The minister is aware that there are issues the retired teachers' association has raised; I hope those will be dealt with and that he will be conscious of their concerns. Again, it seems to me from my discussions that it is something we should be able to ensure, that those teachers who are currently retired are not going to see their payments reduced in any way by the new investment policy the teachers' pension commission will have.

In closing, I simply say we hope this new arrangement will meet the needs of both teachers and the government and we hope the concerns we have had in the past around binding arbitration will not in any way come to pass. We would underline that the projections made at the time around the actuarial deficit were real and it was a concern the former Treasurer had at the time, that we needed to protect both those teachers who were going to retire as well as the fiscal soundness of the plan. For that reason, the decision at that time to ask each side to increase their payments by 1% was a legitimate one, and that is reflected in the present agreement.

Mrs Cunningham: It has been some time, I think, since we have had the problem and the challenge in this province of finding a solution to the management of the teachers' pension plan. Over a very long period, probably for the last couple of years or more, as the member for York North has so ably said already, an agreement to run the $21-billion Ontario teachers' pension plan as an equal partnership between the Ontario government and teachers has been finalized.

There is a great deal of joy for a couple of reasons. First, the taxpayers of the province were left with a very large unfunded liability. Second, it took a lot of hours of negotiation to come to a conclusion which I am sure some will feel very proud of and others will have some long-lasting concerns about. Certainly in our party there are mixed feelings about this particular agreement. But from my point of view and as the Education critic, I have to say we are in support of the provisions of this bill, which include full funding.

The pension plan will be maintained on a fully funded basis. Full funding means the costs of benefits must be recognized at the time they are promised so we never get ourselves into the mess we have in the past. Enshrining full funding in the legislation ensures that an arbitration panel cannot make an award that will create a deficit in the plan. That is why I think we have to be watchful of the public money and the teachers' money down the road. Now that they are full partners, together with members of the government, we are ensuring that this plan will be appropriately and responsibly managed.

The other provision of the bill that we support is the matching of contributions. The principle of matching contributions will be put into this act to ensure that teachers and the government share in the cost of providing any future benefits gained either through negotiation or arbitration. The government will continue to make special payments to repay the unfunded liability. As members know, the unfunded liability resulted from the merging of the teachers' superannuation fund and the teachers' superannuation adjustment fund into the consolidated Ontario teachers' pension fund in 1989.

The actuarial surplus in the teachers' superannuation fund, estimated at $461 million, was used to offset the unfunded liability in the teachers' superannuation adjustment fund, estimated at $5.9 billion. Therefore, the principle of matching contributions is relaxed during the transition period, which is from 1992-97, in the event of a solvency deficiency.

We also approve of the transition period. Over a long period of time the government may apply all gains, if any, from the 1992 valuation to pay down the initial unfunded liability, 60% of the gains in the 1994 valuation, and 40% of the gains from the 1997 valuation. The government will be responsible for the same proportion of losses if they occur, and any new unfunded liability will be amortized over 15 years. The right to the balance of the gains or losses will be shared between the government and the teachers. All gains and losses after the 1997 valuation will be shared 50-50 and will be negotiable.

It is not my plan to talk about the solvency deficiency, but we do approve of that area of the act. The protection from liability is another area that we support, and we support most of all the terms of the partnership.

At this time I would like to quote from what we said on December 20, 1989. "The only way teachers can have a meaningful say, like other members of our society, the only way they can be partners is for that partnership to have a dispute-settling mechanism, a way of resolving disputes between equals -- a basic principle on which our society is based and which we support."

Having said all those things, I think teachers will appreciate that they have one of the best pension plans in Ontario and that the broader public sector will be facing wage restraints in light of today's economic situation. Benefit enhancements will cost both the teachers and the taxpayers.

When we have a public service sector such as teachers, whom we rely on to be the best professionals in the classrooms and in administrative positions across this province, at the same time we welcome the opportunity for them to have an equal say in how their pension fund money is invested and ultimately disbursed.

It is with a degree of relief that I see this issue finally come to a conclusion. What I am really looking for now is some public discussion on the challenges in education today.

We would welcome the input from the teachers in the future, a lot of input, around curriculum reform and -- again I speak of something I spoke of earlier in the House today -- around apprenticeship training, the concerns about our young people dropping out of school at a very early age, the concerns we have in funding education and new ways of sharing resources so that we can be more efficient and so that the students will be the ones to benefit from the tax dollars we are all paying.

1600

The great concern we have about our profession is that we have very few males entering the teaching profession in early childhood education and in the primary grades. That was a concern in the early 1970s. We saw an improvement in those numbers, and now we see that in fact they are dropping off again.

The challenge of education is ongoing, and if we want our young people to be contributing members of this society, we will be relying on the teachers for their good advice around curriculum development and around the whole idea of funding, showing leadership in their communities, giving good information to their school boards, making certain their teacher representatives are coming down to advise this government -- all parts of this government, whether it be the opposition or the minister -- on the best way to solve the problems of today.

I am glad this Teachers' Pension Statute Law Amendment Act will have third reading today and we can finally put it aside and get on to some of the bigger issues that are facing us in education in Ontario today.

Mr Hope: I am pleased to be a part of the debate that is taking place this afternoon on Bill 140 dealing with teachers' pensions.

Coming from the labour movement and understanding the issue of pensions and seeing the landmark that is set here making the partnership of the teachers, along with the government and the employers, part of the mechanism that will lead to a prosperous future, I believe, as we look at the changes facing our society -- and as the member for London North just indicated about our education system, making sure our young people have the adaptable skills for the future in this competitive world marketplace we are heading towards -- it is important to show leadership and co-operation with the teachers and an understanding partnership.

It is a partnership in more than just words. It is a partnership in relation to their pensions which will lead us into the future of our children, because as we grow and develop with one another on the changes we must face in the upcoming future of our lives, it is important that we have the teachers on our side making sure that we address those issues that are facing our young people today -- not only our young people but also the older people who have been displaced out of jobs through effects that have been no fault of their own and who are looking for retraining and re-education through our school system.

It is important that we start to understand how pensions play an active part, especially to our retirees. As I reflect on the retirees who have made the supreme sacrifices in the past and today, some of them actually live in poverty because the indexing has not been there for them. As members of the government and members of society, I would say we must honour our seniors who have been so dedicated to the communities they grew up in and have developed over the years. It is important that we start to give them recognition.

Bill 140 is an important element in where government ought to go and where employers ought to go. It is very important that this legislation show its commitment towards both the working relationship and the partnership that has to be there in order for us to be competitive in the world marketplace.

I know the teachers and the citizens in my community feel that pensions are a very important issue. Throughout the campaign I heard a number of people both from the teaching and non-teaching professions. They have the ability to make sure they govern their pension plans effectively and efficiently for the communities they represent. There is one true job security that I found before becoming a member of this Legislature and that is a good pension so you can retire in dignity and not in poverty. I think this is one thing that will lead us that way.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Questions and/or comments? Further debate? Seeing none, does the honourable minister wish to wrap up?

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have two more members to speak to this, and I thought the official opposition had another person.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Do we have unanimous consent to revert to the honourable member for Etobicoke West?

Agreed to.

Mr Stockwell: This is a rather interesting debate that is taking place in this House today because it surrounds a very controversial issue during the last government's days in power. It is a rather interesting debate because I believe it shows the effect certain special-interest groups can have on elections and on government and on decision-making.

I got elected to this House because I thought it was important that the issues of the day were represented by elected members on a personal and local basis in some instances. I believe it is a healthy situation that members of this House be allowed to speak out on all issues as they see them, those issues affecting their constituents and the constituents in the province.

I know full well that our critic spoke up about this resolution in support, but I think it is also important to know that in our caucus and I think in any healthy caucus there can be dissent and disagreement about certain pieces of legislation that come before this House. I personally will not support this legislation. I will not support it for what I believe are some fundamental reasons that I do not believe are in the best interests of the taxpayers of Ontario.

Today we are faced with a decision such as this that does exactly the wrong thing and sends the wrong message out to the people in this province. It is no secret that we are in a very difficult period of time for financing, economics, deficits, taxes and so on. I do not think anyone would argue with the fact that this is an expensive resolution to this problem. There seems to be some relief involved that there is resolution, and there is some thought that simply because you have resolution, it must be good. I do not necessarily believe that simply because you get an agreement it means it is necessarily good for the taxpayers.

I had a lot of respect for the last Liberal government in this House on this subject. They took what I consider to be a fair and reasonable stand on this issue. I think they were dealt a very severe blow by this union and I do not think in some instances this union was totally reasonable in its demands and requests. It really disheartens me to think that a few short months later, with the change in government, any party would become gun-shy of the decision it took not more than a year and a half ago.

What really irritates me about this legislation is the attempt by this government to pass off the decision-making, talking about arbitrated settlements and third-party negotiated settlements.

We get elected to this House to represent the taxpayers in this province. We get elected to make decisions that affect the taxpayers in this province. As we saw with the doctors and as we are seeing with the teachers, we are removing our ability to represent the people who elect us. If every time we reach a touchy issue or come to a difficult decision we suggest we pass it off to a third party, we are not truly representing the people who elect us. There has been much talk about caucus solidarity and the ability to allow MPPs, and MPs for that matter, to speak their minds on certain issues that affect their own constituencies. This type of legislation goes one step further. Even if an MPP wanted to speak his mind on this issue, the decision is taken out of this chamber's hands and given to one or maybe three people who have not been elected to anything, who are not representing anybody and who do not have to answer to anyone. If members opposite think that is what the people in this province are looking for, if they think this is the kind of democracy that will serve the constituents of Ontario properly, then we have a fundamental disagreement, and that fundamental disagreement stems from that specific position in this piece of legislation.

1610

The other concern I have is with pensions generally. I spoke about the Ontario municipal employees retirement system not too long ago in this House. I was very clear in my arguments. With this specific plan and other government pension plans, I do not think that in the next couple of decades the government is going to be able to fund these kinds of plans to the levels it is requesting. If the participants in those plans want to see funding top-ups, increased pensionable earnings or better pensions, I suggest to them it is well within their rights to increase their commitment to those pension plans.

We have grave financial problems in this province. We were some $35 billion in debt before the last budget. We will be $45 billion in debt. We are accruing debt at the rate of $10 billion per year. We have unfunded liabilities at the Workers' Compensation Board in the neighbourhood of $10 billion. Before this Legislature approves and agrees to more spending in this vein, I believe the public should be consulted. I think the public should be informed about what this kind of legislation means to it. Believe it or not, everybody in this province does not work for the government, everybody in this province is not a teacher and everybody in this province who works in the private sector -- members opposite should hold on to their hats -- does not have a pension plan. They make their way and they make provisions with their own income for their own pension and retirement plans.

I am not suggesting there should not be pension plans in place for government workers, teachers, municipal workers, etc. What I am saying is that I believe this plan to be far too expensive and, as we will find in the next couple of decades, far too costly for the makeup of the dollars today in Ontario.

Last, I reiterate what this will do: It will take away the opportunity of future governments to manage the fiscal control of this province. The simple question asked is, how? The simple answer is, we are giving the authority for decision-making to an unelected body of one to three people which will control billions of taxpayer dollars. That is not healthy, it is not wise and I do not truly believe it is very democratic.

Mr O'Connor: There are a couple of points the member raised. I can understand some of his concerns. I recall about a year and a half ago, before the election, I had an opportunity to fill in for a pension representative and talk to some of the senior people in the plant where I worked. They were getting ready for retirement and one thing they had was a secure pension, something they could look at. It was something that was negotiated, a partnership arrangement made between the union and the company in trying to come up with something that was going to work. What we have in Bill 140 is the same thing.

The member opposite mentioned that perhaps not everybody has a pension. He is quite right. There are a lot of people in Ontario who do not have a pension, but does that make it right? Because people do not have a secure, adequate income to retire on does that make it right? I really question that. What is really exciting about Bill 140 is the partnership, the arrangement and co-operation between the government and the teachers. It is terrific.

When the minister presented this legislation on October 17 I was thinking, "What a progressive way of finally trying to fill in the gaps in the legislation as it was introduced in 1989." There are always going to be questions and room for amendment somewhere down the road with a lot of legislation as it is introduced, but one thing that has to take place is co-operation between the key stakeholders. Here in this legislation we see the teachers and the government sitting down and talking about it. The teachers should have a say in what happens with their future pension funds.

For the member opposite to say because some people do not have pensions that is too bad, I do not know whether that is quite the right approach. I think we have to recognize that everyone deserves some sort of say in his or her future.

Mr Sola: I would like to comment on the member's concern about compulsory arbitration because I think it is a valid concern. At the same time it also shows that the government does not quite live up to the image it tries to present.

I have a letter here from a Mr Conte, who works for PEGO, Provincial Engineers in the Government of Ontario, regarding their award for 1990 and 1991.

Mr Owens: Is this on topic?

Mr Sola: It is on the topic of binding arbitration.

"While the PEGO arbitration award may cause you much concern, let me clearly state that it causes me equal concern that the government would even consider any attempt to contest it. The award was granted after due process of negotiation leading to binding arbitration. There were no irregularities in any of the proceedings in any way whatsoever. The government had more than sufficient opportunity to formulate and present its arguments. The arbitration panel did their work judiciously and thoroughly before arriving at a decision. They did not take their work lightly and did not make their decision irresponsibly. Yet the government, after promising to abide by the decision of binding arbitration, decided to contest it."

In other words, the government is trying to be all things to all people. It is promising it will provide binding arbitration to the teachers, engineers, whomever, yet when the decision goes against the government it finds no difficulty in contesting it.

Mr Callahan: I think the member for Etobicoke West said it well. He praised the former Liberal government for having had the wisdom and, I submit to the Minister of Education, the guts to do it. We hear in the real world that people talk about rich pensions for teachers. I am 100% in favour of pensions for teachers who are committed, and there are many in our society who are very committed.

But it was the Honourable Robert Nixon, now the agent general in London, who had the guts to say, "We are going to take a heretofore unfunded arrangement and we are going to accept it." He tried to work out an accommodation with the teachers. I say that took guts because a lot of people out there who are not teachers perhaps see the public service, including ourselves, creating nice pensions while there are people who are homeless, people who are not being fed. There are schizophrenics wandering the streets of Toronto. There are learning-disabled children in our schools not receiving appropriate treatment or care, in terms of the numbers of children in a classroom and who are going to eventually wind up, God forbid, in some addicted form or in our correctional systems. And we talk about pensions.

I am in favour of pensions. As I said, I have great admiration for teachers. They are devoted and give a lot to people, and young people particularly in this area. I have to say I think a lot of accolades go to the former Liberal government that had the guts to stand up and take an issue that was not necessarily representative of everybody in Ontario and deal with it.

1620

Mr Stockwell: I would like to comment on the comments of the member for Durham-York. I am not suggesting for a moment that just because some people do not have pensions others should not. What I am trying to point out is that there are people in this world, mostly private sector, small and medium-sized business people, who do not have pensions. Before the government can discuss topping up benefits and so on to certain sectors, maybe in line with its thinking it would consider helping out people who do not have any pension at all. Before the government considers topping up already very healthy pension plans, maybe it could review some people who do not have pension plans at all and who work all their lives in small business to pay taxes, etc, that pay our salaries and the teachers' salaries and subsequently their pension plans.

The other point the member made about a company and a union negotiating a pension plan improvement is well taken. I agree with that. I agree with negotiated settlements. I agree with bargaining. I believe in collective agreements. I believe two people, one union representative and one company representative, should come together and reach an agreement. Where I have a fundamental disagreement is that I believe in the public sector the elected officials must be responsible for those agreements. A union rep would come forward, an elected rep would come forward ultimately and hammer out a deal.

This is taking that authority away from the elected officials on the unions' ability to appeal and giving it to a person who has not been elected and is not representing the public. When the company people negotiate a deal, there is a company and a union; there is no third party. In the public sector, according to this legislation, there is a third party who has been elected to nothing, has no worries about representing the people and ultimately makes the decisions we were elected to make. That is wrong.

Mr Fletcher: It is a pleasure to rise today and support this piece of legislation. I am very happy with this legislation. As a former trustee who has supported the teachers and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation in our riding, especially when they were on strike, I am very happy that this is finally coming around.

When I speak to the OSSTF members they tell me that as far as this piece of legislation is concerned it is a beacon for public or private pension plans. It is one of the first where the members who have this pension have some say in what is happening. They also have a say in how the moneys are going to be invested and managed. That is also a first. The teachers I have been talking to are very happy.

If I remember correctly, the Leader of the Opposition at the time, the now Premier, was in Hamilton talking about pensions to the teachers during the downfall of the Liberal empire. The teachers were saying: "What we want in our pension plan is some say in what happens with the surplus, because that is a deferred wage. That is still our money." We said we agreed with that and we have followed through. I appreciate that the minister has done such a good job in taking care of the pension issue.

The binding arbitration is one of the better parts of this whole piece of legislation because now there is a resolution for any dispute. The members opposite are saying everyone should have the same opportunity. I agree they should. Unfortunately not everyone negotiates with this government. If they did, perhaps they would have better pension plans and perhaps we would not have the problem we do have today.

I am delighted that this issue is finally being put to rest and that the teachers' associations and the government are on an even footing and are both working together to resolve an issue other governments could not. It takes a lot of guts, as was said by the minister, and also a lot of soul-searching by the teachers to finally accept an agreement that both can agree on. As I say, it is about time this happened and it is about time a government came in that was willing to listen to the people.

Mr Owens: I would like to wholeheartedly associate myself with the comments made by the member for Guelph. Unfortunately the member for Etobicoke West is not here. I think he must understand the argument with respect to pensions and the need for working people, not only teachers but all working people, to have a say in how their pension moneys are invested and how the return is set up.

I applaud our Minister of Education and his predecessor, the member for London Centre, for having the courage to take this agreement forward. We have taken a promise we made during the campaign to support teachers and will move forward on further pension reform as our term of government comes through. The main thrust, the main issue is that we now have a partnership with the teachers so that we can negotiate as co-equal partners. This is important for all working people in this province.

Mr Jackson: I certainly hope we do not get all caught up and start overstating the issues that are before us with this bill. First and foremost, the minister who is presenting this bill, at the time it was in the forefront of public debate, was himself a school board trustee in this province. He knows that his school board and his trustee compatriots had taken a different view from the view the government has taken to date.

Much of the credit really is due to the Treasurer, who was here in the House during those debates. Much credit is due to the Treasurer himself, a former teacher. As I have stated in this House, this is not just a recent development. On the very last day of the budget year for which the Liberal government had most of the responsibility, the NDP government transferred some $500 million or $600 million into the teachers' pension plan. That money became part of this debt, the $1 billion that Bob Nixon had somehow been responsible for being out over when he campaigned and said he would have a balanced budget.

The Treasurer, to his credit, not only honoured his political commitment but avoided all the political flak in this province by sticking it on the back of Bob Nixon, the very man some Liberal members have indicated had the tenacity and fortitude and the tough-mindedness to defend. I can only say, as a member who has been around for quite some years, that I can recall that was when Bob Nixon took the very position in opposition that the member for Nickel Belt took as Treasurer.

Mrs Witmer: I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the discussion today. I have to tell members I have been involved in the management of the teachers' pension plan for a long time. I am extremely pleased that a solution has been found and that this issue is finally going to be laid to rest.

I do very much support the fact that this plan does create an equal partnership between the teachers and the Ontario government. I believe it will ensure it is going to be managed in a responsible manner, that in the long term that will be in the best interest of the people in this province.

Our Education critic from London North has outlined very well the provisions of the plan and the terms of the partnership, and I would certainly agree with her that I support those. I am particularly pleased that it includes a mechanism for settling disputes.

1630

I know the discussion has been a long one and I am very pleased that the government was able to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion which I feel will be of benefit to all the people in this province. I would add, now that this issue has been resolved, that I feel it is extremely important, in all discussions that take place in this province, that teachers be equal partners.

I believe we found that in the last provincial election there were many interest groups, many lobby groups, supporting different trustees for different reasons. There seems to be a tremendous amount of interest in education, there seems to be a tremendous amount of concern. Some of the issues the public is concerned about are educational funding and taxation, curriculum development, standardized testing, apprenticeship programs and Bill 125, particularly section 50. I would hope, when discussions do take place, that the government recognizes there is a need for these interest groups, for these lobby groups, to work with government and with teachers and all other educational groups. If we are going to resolve the tremendous challenges facing us in this province in the area of education, we need a partnership where all the players can have an equal say.

Mr Sola: I would like to comment on the member's statement that this issue is resolved. I agree with her that it may be resolved for the time being, but I am afraid a precedent has been set in Saskatchewan, where they came up with binding arbitration for certain elements in society. When the government found the hoped-for solution too rich for its blood, it had to go back and repeal legislation, bring in former legislation, because it just could not make ends meet.

For instance, the auditor's report showed that for the last year, the Ontario teachers' pension fund got an extra $196 million to top up the fund, and this is in a time of recession. Imagine what it will be like when the economy gets rolling again and inflation is even higher and interest rates -- it depends on whether their investments are in long-term or short-term rates, because they will find that the fund will become a bottomless pit requiring more and more money in order to finance the teachers' pensions.

That is the reason I think the former Treasurer refused to grant this provision, that is why the Liberal government could not come to an agreement with the teachers' federation and that is the reason this government will live to regret this deal.

Mrs Witmer: In summary, I would echo my support for the bill and encourage the minister to ensure that all partners be involved in future discussions regarding educational issues.

Mr Jackson: This represents about the ninth or 10th occasion I have had the opportunity to rise in the House to discuss not this bill in particular, but a series of debates and discussions that led up to where we are today, passing Bill 140.

There has been an interesting series of new injections to this debate since the last election. The debate was much more narrow in those days, as I recall, but we are now hearing that the economic times, for example, should dictate that we look differently upon this legislation. We are hearing that some experience in another province perhaps will cause the government to live to regret the decision. I say that even though these are tough times and we are expected to make tough decisions, we also have to make fair decisions.

I have made fairly strong-passioned pleas for an opportunity for us to change the way we think about pensions, where we move it from a proprietary, top-down process to a more egalitarian, more equally shared approach to the investment, that society contributes along with the worker, who also contributes to a pension plan. As we move along in the evolution of that process, we are now faced with some leading-edge legislation.

I will be supporting the legislation. I will be criticized in some quarters for it. Some who supported me may not even thank me for my support of it, but I have to recall that there are several basic principles established in this bill which we in government from all parties could agree with.

I would like to suggest that teachers generally have become favoured whipping persons in a variety of circles. Both the minister and I are former trustees and we have gone toe to toe with teachers in collective bargaining. I will address the implications of this bill to collective bargaining in a moment, because I want to raise a few serious questions for this minister, for that which he has set in motion will also have some implications to collective bargaining in this province.

The minister will be aware, as I am, that teachers do not always receive all the very best support that a lot of professional workers can receive in this province. Maybe some of us get separated from the experiences of our children in their classrooms. Maybe some of us have had a bad experience with the school system. That only makes it not unlike any other profession in this province.

But I happen to believe that teachers are less a trade union and more a profession. As such, I am willing to risk that the elements of this bill are both fair and appropriate. Yes, it will be expensive. Can we afford it in this day and age? Clearly the answer is no, as this government has been standing in this House over the past three weeks announcing cuts in hospital beds and cuts to services for victims of sexual assault and cuts to children services in other areas. That is a very difficult decision, but the history of this bill is that this was a promise made. It is grounded in a political threat that if the government of the day, the Liberals, did not concede to this approach, the government would be brought down. There is not a person in this House who did not feel the impact of that threat in his or her riding in the last election.

Interjection.

Mr Jackson: That is true, and if the member for Guelph is not convinced of that, I would be surprised if he ever turned a single teacher away who offered to canvass for him in the last election.

The Acting Chair (Mr Villeneuve): Please address your comments to the Chair. It would be easier and it would also prevent any other members from interjecting.

Mr Jackson: I apologize. Actually, the member had left the chamber when those members were responding to his comments. Perhaps he would not have had to interject if he had been here to consider what we wanted to say about his commentary.

The issue of binding arbitration is a very sensitive one. Certainly I raised it in this House back in 1985 over the issue of fees for pharmacists in their negotiations with the government. In the minority government in that period, both the Liberals and the NDP voted against it. I tabled a further amendment on binding arbitration during Bill 94, the balanced billing debate in this province, and again the Liberals and the NDP refused to support the principle when dealing with other professionals providing essential services in this province.

I can only hope and believe that the minister on behalf of his government is signalling to this province that it is prepared now to deal with other professional groups this government holds captive with its payments and that it will treat them in a similar fashion. The list is rather long. I think it would be cynical in the extreme if the only gesture of binding arbitration and trust were given to teachers and not to other professionals. I leave that as an open question for the government.

1640

I want to close my remarks by making a reference to the issue on behalf of teachers and their concerns about binding arbitration when it comes to collective bargaining. I do not wish to say this is a double standard, but the minister is painfully aware, having gone through binding arbitration and the reluctance of the parties to pursue it, that if it is good enough for pension plans, one should ask the teachers why it is not good enough in many respects for collective bargaining when in fact the stakes are not the profitability of the pension, but whether the children are allowed to stay in school longer.

There are several strikes currently going on in this province. The minister has not been posed with the question, but in his government's lifetime he will be, of when the government will intervene. Whether it is a community college strike or whatever, if history is true, they probably will not intervene. They have an interventionist third-party mechanism for pensions, but not when it comes to children's education.

Finally, I want to say how pleased I am that the teachers' federation can now put behind it its two-and-a-half-year battle with politicians in this province over pensions. They can now focus their energies, their awareness and understanding of education in this province towards curriculum reform. My colleague the member for Waterloo North articulated this point of view, and I could not agree with her more, that they can now encourage this government to participate in national testing. They can encourage this government to look at commonsense solutions to the financial crisis in our school system. I believe they will do that. In that peace represented in this bill, we expect much to come from the federations.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate that these are tough times, no doubt. We will be faced with tough decisions but we must also make fair decisions. Therefore, I will support this bill.

Mr Callahan: I want to clarify something. The impression I may have left was that I was against this bill. I am not. As I indicated before, I think Mr Nixon was at the very forefront of this entire issue and, as the member for Burlington South pointed out, took a lot of heat during the last election. I guess it was one of the things in the mix that defeated us.

But I have go back and say, having supported the bill -- because I support the teachers who do a caring job for their students -- one of the things that got me into politics back in 1977 was the introduction of the Hall-Dennis report. I have to say that the Hall-Dennis report, in my view, has created problems that any teacher worth his or her oats will acknowledge. It has created 64,000 people in the region of Peel alone who are learning-disabled. That is an issue we never heard of before. We only heard of it when we opened up that new, innovative process of open concept where the bright children did very well, but the children who were intermediate or perhaps slow lost a great deal.

I have seen that flotsam and jetsam of the world in the courts because these young people were pushed through a system where they could not stay back; they had to achieve and were expected to achieve. As I say, I support this bill because I think teachers in the main are very concerned individuals and have the same concern about the Hall-Dennis report, this opening up of the concept. We destroyed, I suggest, a system that 10 or 15 years ago was beautiful and had very great discipline, and we are now faced with discipline that is reminiscent of the 1950s film The Blackboard Jungle.

Mr Jackson: I would like to proceed with the debate and thank all members for listening to my comments.

Hon Mr Silipo: I want to say first of all that I had the sense that this was going to be a fairly standard debate, and I want to say how pleased I am with the nature of the comments that have come out. We have touched on a number of issues in discussing this bill that I think are clear in everyone's mind, that relate to the whole area of the importance of education in our society and the whole sense of partnership that we want to try to develop among all the stakeholders and all the people who are involved in education, and within those clearly the teaching profession, as a way of ensuring that we are in fact addressing the issues in as co-operative a way as possible.

I want to say a couple of words in conclusion, first to acknowledge the work that was done by my predecessor, the member for London Centre, on this issue. As people know, the issue was actually resolved by the time I took on this portfolio and a lot of the work was done by my predecessor and by the officials in the ministry and also at Management Board in terms of the negotiations that went on with the teachers.

Whatever we may think of this, I appreciate the support for this bill obviously from all sides of the House, particularly from the opposition benches. As has been indicated, the fact that they are supporting this bill might cause them some short-term political problems; therefore, I can appreciate even more the support they are giving to this bill. I think it has been recognized that it does resolve a long-standing problem that has been there.

We can quibble at this point about who was responsible for some of the fiscal problems related to this bill, who was responsible for the liability that was there. As we came into office, we discovered that the assumptions that had been made in terms of the liability for this pension plan had been underestimated by our predecessor government and that therefore, in addition to the concerns that we had about the process of dealing with a pension plan, we also had to deal with the very real issue of the liability that was there. We have resolved it, we think, in a way that is fair to everyone by the provisions of the pension plan, and we have done it in a way that shows some sense of responsibility also in the way this pension plan should be managed.

I know there have been concerns expressed about the arbitration process, and I want to say a couple of things about that. First of all, I need to remind members that the arbitration process has a number of limits built into it so that an award cannot be made which would put the fund in a deficit position or which would be too onerous for either partner to pay. Therefore, there are some limits on the arbitration process. It is not simply an open-ended process.

But what is perhaps even more important than the fact that there is a limited risk to the government and to the teachers on that score is the sense that there is a formal negotiation process that is now a fundamental part of the overseeing of this pension plan. In that sense there is that partnership that is important in looking at this issue and resolving the outstanding problems that might crop up in the future. In that sense, there is a lot of merit to the structure of this.

1650

I want to say one final thing. We know, and others have touched on, the question of the fiscal problems we are all dealing with. I want to repeat the comments that were made by one of the members opposite about having to make decisions that are tough but fair. I agree wholeheartedly with that. As Minister of Education, I see that what we are heading into is a period where indeed we are going to be asking -- have been asking -- all partners in education in the broader public sector to acknowledge the very serious fiscal problems we have. It is my strong feeling that the basis of trust and support that has been established with the teaching profession through this initiative will assist us greatly in arriving at and building on that sense of co-operation we need within the teaching community in order to help us deal with the kinds of fiscal problems we have in the broader public sector in general and education in particular.

We know there are a number of major problems we need to deal with, not only on the fiscal level but also on the curriculum side. I certainly look forward to the participation of the teachers with us in that process and, at the same time, the participation of members of this House in that process.

This is a good deal. It is a fair deal. It is one that allows us to set a new framework which indeed may turn out to be not a bad model for other pension plans.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LES CARBURANTS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 85, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act, 1981/Projet de loi85, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1981 de la taxe sur les carburants.

Mr Callahan: It is always a pleasure on a Thursday evening at about 4:50 to stand and rise in this very important chamber and to have an opportunity to address issues of taxation.

There is no question that the people who are watching this program, assuming they are not already having their dinner, do not like taxes -- none of us does. Taxation is a necessary evil, one every government is required to invoke when revenues become depleted. To be fair to the present government, we are going through a period in our history not just in this province but in this country and perhaps in the United States and other areas of what heretofore have been very successful economies.

For that reason, taxes are important. Having said that, Bill 85, as members know, deals with fuel tax, that is, diesel gas for trucks and locomotives. I guess we can almost leave the locomotives out of it because we have seen a very unfortunate event occur in this country. While the Fathers of Confederation linked this country together by rail, the federal government has taken steps to derail our rail. That is unfortunate because there are a lot of people out there who are train buffs and a lot out of people who could have been serviced very adequately by rail.

In fact, the government has missed an opportunity. I throw this out to the Minister of Transportation -- I will not comment on his not being here; it is a Thursday night and he has to go back to a very difficult riding. We do not use the opportunities we have. We do not use the rights of way we have on the 400 series of highways in this province to run high-speed rail -- like the Japanese. We always talk about the Japanese as being on the economic cutting edge in terms of being leaders in the free world. We do not take advantage of that; we cut our locomotives. I suggest that if the government were prepared to accept the fact that you could run high-speed rail along the 400 series of highways -- this gets into the whole question of Bill 85 -- you could in fact link places like Barrie, North Bay and points north.

One of the most interesting things I found when I came into the Legislature in 1985 was looking at the topographical map and wondering why northern Ontario was so isolated. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize the reason it is isolated is that there is very little transportation. In fact, the great northern railway just laid off all sorts of people and it is going to introduce buses. Most of the modern buses today, in order to meet the pollution standards all our young people require, are going to use diesel fuel. So what does this government do? This government in its April 29 budget taxes the commodity that diesel buses ingest.

This is not a criticism of this government, because it seems to be true of all governments: They seem to think the place you get taxes is to tax the things people consume -- alcohol, cigarettes, whether or not you agree with cigarettes, and in this case diesel fuel, which is going to have a very significant impact on the success of the northern railways going to buses as opposed to trains and will isolate the north to a much larger degree.

These impact on the north. I am going to start from the north to the south. The impact of these taxes, this increase in diesel fuel, is not just one hit, but two hits. I find that very interesting. The budget came down April 29. My good friend the Treasurer stood in the House and read his budget, which gave everybody an increase. Here we are on November 28 debating whether these bills should pass. These bills in fact contain two hits. The first hit is as of the budget; the second hit will come as a New Year's hangover to any trucker, to any person who is going to pay for a ticket on the railroad, to any person, if we get into Bill 86, travelling by car. They are going to be hit with two increases -- not one, but two.

I find it difficult to debate Bill 85 without at least giving some address to the question of Bill 86, which deals with the fuel we use to travel around this great province. We do not have any tolls on our roads. We put all that tax on the taxpayers of this province. This is an indictment of all parties that have been in this House. The first thing they think of is gasoline, and in an equal vein the gasoline of the human body: alcohol. That is probably a good thing. I am not against that, but I think there are a lot of people out there who are, because that and cigarettes are perhaps their only entertainment in life.

A lot of people out there do not agree with cigarettes, but when we find the price of cigarettes is so extraordinary and it is the only thing the average, everyday person can enjoy, we tax it. Those are called sin taxes. Every government figures, "Hit the little guy, hit the driver, hit the smoker, hit the person who drinks."

What do we do with those taxes? If I saw for one minute that those taxes were going into something positive in terms of looking after the flotsam and jetsam left as a result of overconsumption of alcohol or into the health system to deal with the people who smoke too much, or were being used and earmarked, I could appreciate them much better. I cannot appreciate them when it is only a tax grab.

That is not an indictment of this government; this has been done by all governments. That is unfortunate. I find it passing strange that my good friend the Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Algoma -- again, I will make no comment on his absence because he has a long way to go as well -- in a recent issue of the Sudbury Star, November 23, said the following:

"'If Ontario shoppers don't get out there and spend for Christmas, the province could end up losing much-needed tax revenues,' warns Natural Resources Minister Bud Wildman."

1700

As I go around to the shopping plazas in my riding, the numbers of cars there are not the numbers that were there last year, the year before or the year before that. You can find a parking space lickety-split. That is an indication of what is happening to our economy.

It goes on to say:

"'It's a very serious problem,' said Wildman in describing the province's economy Friday.

"Wildman put aside natural resources issues yesterday afternoon to talk about the province's precarious economic situation during a speech to the Northern Ontario Tourism Outfitters Association at the Sheraton-Caswell Hotel. He warned that Ontario's economic woes could strain the federal equalization system, in which wealthier provinces like Ontario help support the poorer provinces."

He also went on to say much about tourism. Members should think about it. We want tourists to come to this province. Tourism is a very important economic indicator and economic job creation scheme in this province all year. What do we do? We tell the people who can travel here easily by car: "Our gas is probably twice what yours is. If you want to buy a pack of cigarettes in our country, it's twice what it is in your country. If you want to buy a bottle of alcohol, it's twice or three times what it is in the United States."

Mr Stockwell: Why?

Mr Callahan: Because it is a tax grab by governments that feel this is a way of taking money and taking away some of the pleasures that are left to individuals. Tax freedom day is now in August, I think, as a result of the combined federal-provincial tax grab. This means that the poor guys and ladies out there who are working their buns off to support their families cannot even sit down and enjoy these things because we tax them to the hilt.

They do not even get the benefit of knowing that if they get into a health problem because of smoking or an excess of alcohol, that money is going into creating the systems that will provide relief to them, to help them in their problem. What do we do? We are purveyors of items that can cause problems, obviously, but we are not prepared to provide the mechanisms and background to provide for these people.

What do we do to tourism? I recently travelled out of Ontario for a holiday and went to the famous duty-free store that is run by our Liquor Control Board of Ontario at Pearson International Airport. I walked in and there was a big sign: "Duty Free," One would think you were going to buy that stuff without any tax. I have to tell the people of Ontario that the duty-free store at Pearson International Airport -- and this is not an indictment of the people who work there -- is a crock. It is a sham. You can buy a bottle of Canadian Club -- this is not a commercial for Canadian Club -- in the United States for $15 for one litre or whatever. You can buy it at the duty-free shop at Pearson International Airport for about $20.

Hon Mr Cooke: You raised the taxes.

Mr Callahan: No. Those guys are in control now. The government House leader interjects and says it was us who raised the taxes, not them. No, it is a combination of the New Democrats plus the federal Conservatives who have privatized all this glorious stuff and turned it into a situation of "Make money on the poor traveller." I am going to bring this all around in a second, Mr Speaker.

You buy a carton of cigarettes at the so-called duty-free shop and it is $20. I said to the young fellow behind the counter, who had nothing to do with the taxes, "Why is it $20 here and $15 at the border in Niagara Falls?" He said, "Well, you're at Pearson International Airport." I said: "What's that got to do with it? You are duty-free, supposedly." Duty-free is free enterprise, privatization, but sucking the public in to think this is duty-free. I suggest to the government that it get rid of the duty-free nonsense and at least call the shot as it is.

Going back to the whole scenario of this, we talk about tourism as being a major item in this province, and it is. It is tragic. I do not put all the blame for this on the present government, but we have lost 260,000 jobs as a combined effect -- at least I will be that partisan -- of a very poor economy, which is not just Ontario, it is worldwide, but I suggest some of the government's measures have certainly added to this loss of jobs.

How could they possibly not look and earmark every possible way they can increase the influx of people to this province in tourism and in other areas that in fact are going to create those jobs and replace those jobs? There are people out there tonight sitting watching us perhaps, if they have a television. Perhaps it has been repossessed. Perhaps they have given up on politicians. Perhaps they figure this chamber is a useless entity. Perhaps they feel they have to survive without the benefit of the trust they put in politicians. Perhaps they do not understand how this chamber operates, how it needs reform desperately, how it is no longer a democratic institution, how it is now an oligarchy.

Oligarchy means it is run by three or four people down there in the back office with the Premier and six or seven spin doctors who are not even elected and who are making all the decisions and bringing forward all the sexy programs for this province while people are not even able to feed their children, are not able to find adequate housing. What does the government do? The government creates taxes on things such as the use of your car.

To get to the real purpose of Bill 85, which deals with trucks and with locomotives, we look at what has happened in terms of our truckers. We all saw Queen's Park out here blocked by the truckers in a very innovative way, I thought, to get their message across to the Treasurer and to the Minister of Transportation of the day.

They were basically saying the same thing that was said in that movie Network. I thought that was beautiful. They raised the window and they said, "I've had enough; I'm fed up." That is what the people of Ontario are telling us. In particular the truckers, in the case of Bill 85, are telling us we cannot compete.

The April 29 budget, as I said, announced not just one hit but two hits. If they think they have it bad now, the truckers are going to wake up on January 1 with a terrible hangover, because that hangover is going to mean they are going to have to lay off people.

If members think about it, the trucking industry creates 228,000 jobs. They may not be unionized jobs, but there are 228,000 people who are able as a result of working to go home and give their children and their family a decent living in this tough economy.

What are we doing? We are creating problems for those 228,000 workers. If they are in fact laid off, it is not just the truckers, believe me. We all know there are spinoffs from every industry, and I think that is Economics 101, which this government should perhaps take a course in to understand that for every step it takes that interferes with one industry, it in fact affects indirectly a whole slew of other industries down the line.

There are people who repair trucks. There are people who sell tires for trucks. There are people who fix the engines of trucks. There are people who develop parts for the trucks.

Hon Mr Cooke: This is Economics 101?

Mr Callahan: That is right. Maybe the member should take Economics 1 1/2. We should start with that, not 101, because it is too advanced for him.

I think that is the thing the government has to recognize, the fact that every little interference with the economy of this province it may think is minor -- the fact that the government is going to reap $90 million in new revenue annually will almost fund its $700-million no-nonsense, do-nothing work program. Who is going to pay for that?

Mr Stockwell: The taxpayers.

1710

Mr Callahan: No, not the taxpayers. The truckers are going to pay for that. They are taxpayers, but the truckers are going to pay for that themselves. The government as legislators will say to themselves: "It's only $15 a tank of gas. That's all it is. It will not do a great deal to injure the economy, just $15."

I suggest to the government that the new diesel tax will cost independent truckers, who are small businessmen working hard to pay off their trucks and support their families, $4,000 a year in new taxes. I say shame on them as a government. The fact is that they are going to wind up with this independent trucker having his truck repossessed because he cannot make the payments. He will go on welfare, and the entire tax community will pay the welfare payments for that.

How can the Treasurer, a great guy, a very nice guy and, I think, a caring man, possibly think about doing that when we have lost -- and again, as I say in as non-partisan way as I can, it is not the government's fault totally, but we have lost 260,000 jobs in this province to the date of this interview on November 25 on CBC Radio Metro Morning between Mike Harris and Floyd Laughren.

Maybe Mike was wont to use hyperbole, I do not know, but I accept that fact because my good friend from Nickel Belt, who is an honest guy, did not say: "You're wrong. It wasn't 260,000 jobs." In fact he said, "We may have lost 260,000 jobs, but we have created 14,000 jobs by increasing our deficit to almost $10 billion."

I figure that if you are going to have a deficit of $9.7 billion, you should have built into it a strategy to avoid losing all those 260,000 jobs or, in the alternative, you should have created a brighter horizon for the people in Ontario so they can anticipate that they will have a job, that their children will have jobs and that the future of Ontario is bright, like it was before.

That is not the case at all. What he says is: "We are creating 14,000 jobs. That is part of the $10-billion deficit." It is very interesting.

Hon Mr Cooke: Eight of the 10 billion is yours.

Mr Callahan: The House leader says $8 billion of that was ours. Well, we have heard from members today and I think, in fairness, the member would agree that some of that was magic numbers created after these people formed the government. They tried to lay the blame on Bob Nixon, the former Treasurer of this province, who I suggest is probably one of the most honest politicians who has ever come through this place. They in fact restructured --

Hon Mr Cooke: I didn't say he wasn't, but he had a $3-billion deficit when he said it was a surplus. Come to your own conclusion.

Mr Callahan: I have to respond to the House leader, Mr Speaker, through you. If Mr Nixon was the most honest politician who ever came through this House, then how can they possibly have said the things they have said about of him? I know, Bill 85. I am back to Bill 85.

The trucking industry came here. They parked their trucks. I think the Treasurer and perhaps the Premier went out to see them as they were parked here demonstrating in a civil way, not breaching the law. Perhaps they were keeping the limousines of the ministers from getting into the House, but they are burning gas that they do not pay tax on, so who cares? In fact, these people used a very civil way of trying to get our attention.

They are saying to us: "You want us to compete in a market across the United States and what do you do to us? You zap us twice. You grab $90 million. You grab $4,000 from each and every one of us who is a small businessman, an independent trucker, and you tell us you are in favour of workers and jobs." How can these people believe that?

The Treasurer, my good friend and a guy I believe in, and the Premier went out and talked to these guys and they moved their trucks. Obviously they said something to the effect: "Don't worry about it, guys. We're going to fix that up. You're going to be able to survive."

I have news for the independent truckers of this province. With the large majority that the government presently has, it is not going to do anything for them. They are going to pass this bill. They are going to drive this bill through the Legislature. They are going to drive it through and they are going to drive those independent truckers out of work. They are in fact going to grab $90 million from these truckers.

I find it passing strange that $500 million was lost to this province for political reasons and nothing else. At the introduction of this House when the New Democratic Party was sworn in as the government, probably the only thing on the Agenda for People that it even dealt with was the question of not piggybacking the PST on to the GST. We were told by the Treasurer of the day that was a promise they had made to the people of Ontario.

Here they were, wearing their flowers. It was the new day. Everybody was being sworn in, and $500 million dollars annually was lost to this province which would have been a tax on everyone; not just a tax on independent truckers but a tax on everyone. In fact, at the time the government did it, I suggest what it was doing was in a way funding the $700 million it gave to northern Ontario for the so-called labour-intensive programs. They were laying that heavy on all the taxpayers of this province and at the same time they were creating and striking the death knell for these small businessmen who buy their rigs on time and rely upon making a reasonable living from them. They are in fact taking those rigs away from them.

If they pass this legislation, I just hope they can account for themselves, from a conscience standpoint, to the truck drivers who are already dealt with very harshly in this province. Are they going to be able to say to them, "Hey, I'm sorry," or are they going to be able to come up with some program other than welfare to try to give their families a decent Christmas, a decent livelihood, the ability to have a home and food and not have to grovel at the feet of government? I suggest to the members that before they vote for this, they should think very carefully about it.

Diesel fuel, as I understand it -- and I stand to be corrected by the Minister of the Environment who is here; perhaps she can give us an expert opinion on that because thus far, with all the respect I have for the Minister of the Environment, she has been able to go nowhere in terms of protecting the environment of this province, even though in opposition she was so thoroughly interested in seeing that all the environment would be protected. Perhaps she can confirm that diesel fuel is in fact one of the cleanest-burning fuels there is that we know now that will make vehicles operate. Where has she been? Has she been at the cabinet table telling the Treasurer: "Hey, take it easy on the diesel fuels. We want to encourage the use of diesel fuels"?

Our government at least had the guts to say to people they could not use leaded fuels any more because they are polluting the environment. We did that at great political risk. There were a lot of people out there, for whatever reason, because they could not afford another car or whatever, who were still using leaded fuels.

What has the present Minister of the Environment done? Did she sit at the cabinet table while the Treasurer decided to do a double hit on the truckers of this province in terms of using the fuel they use? I have to believe she must have, a lady I like very much and a very influential minister. I would suggest that she and the House leader and a couple of others are probably the inner circle of the cabinet down in the back room that I keep referring to as running this entire place, much to my chagrin, because I think if there is anything we have to do in this House, we have got to reform it.

We are absolute frauds to our electorate. We get elected. I see all these good backbenchers sitting here with intelligence and grey matter they could contribute, backbenchers in the opposition and third party who are not having an opportunity to participate. Why are they not speaking up? Why are they not saying to the Minister of the Environment, "Why don't you get in there and fight for no tax increase for this type of fuel because it is non-polluting?"

1720

Does the Minister of the Environment simply capitulate and say, "Sorry, we need the bucks because we have to use the $700 million to buy the north a so-called business creation or job creation program"? It is really a sham. It is not going to create anything, if the members opposite measure that against the number of independent truckers and businessmen who are going to lose their rigs, be thrown out of their jobs and lose their trucks. They and their families are going to have to resort to welfare. In terms of human dignity alone it is insensitive and hurts enough, but putting it on straight economic principles does not make any sense at all. It is totally, absolutely unbelievable.

I imagine that if the members opposite had a ledger sheet and looked at the $500 million the government gave up for a straight, strict, political promise -- nothing more than that, blatant politics -- $500 million annually, the $90 million it is going to grab from the truckers and the locomotives -- as I say, forget the locomotives; Mulroney squelched that one -- and then took the welfare payments it is going to have to pay for these people who lose their trucks and have to go on welfare, I would be willing to bet it would not take an accountant or a rocket scientist to understand that it makes no economic sense.

It may make great political sense, smoke and mirrors and all that nonsense. But if there is one reason people have sent us to this Legislature, they firmly believe that down here democracy reigns free. I think they should understand that is not the case at all, because the government of the day is placed into a straitjacket whereby the former Chairman of the standing committee on finance and economics got turfed by the Premier because he voted against the government. I find that absolutely outrageous.

They are looking to the government as a democratic body, duly elected by them, given a sacred trust to protect their jobs as truckers. Surely to God the Teamsters must represent some of these guys, or do they just represent not the independent truckers but the truckers who own 500 or 600 trucks? Where is the Teamsters union down here fighting for its workers? Maybe they are expecting the guys and ladies opposite to do it. They elected the members opposite and gave them a sacred trust to protect their jobs. What are they doing? They are sitting here saying not one word in terms of their jobs.

What is the government doing for the young people of this province who look to the New Democratic Party -- obviously, because it got the votes it did -- to clean up our environment? When it uses diesel fuel as a cash horse or a cash cow to fund some of the programs it feels are important, what has it done for the young people? What has it done to their environment? What honest return has the government given them for their sacred trust? How can it expect young people to support political parties and vote in elections when they find that the government, by the implementation of this tax, shows a total disrespect for the environment?

The Minister of the Environment -- I am sorry, I say to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, but I have to keep harping on it -- who is a major player at the cabinet table, a senior member of this government, not only does not have anything to say to us in terms of all other issues in the environment but sits there while the Treasurer -- good guy -- puts a 1.7-cents-per-litre tax on diesel fuel after April 29 and is going to hit the truckers of this province on January 1 with -- surprise! -- another 1.7-cents-per-litre increase on diesel fuel.

What kind of studies have been done? I notice, and I do not want to comment on it in case there is some reason the minister carrying this bill -- is the parliamentary assistant here? Somebody raise their hand. The parliamentary assistant is here.

What I would like to know from the parliamentary assistant is, what studies were done by the Ministry of Revenue in terms of the overall economic impact on the trucking industry of that increase of 1.7 cents now and 1.7 cents in the new year? He may answer me in terms of the process when he comments. I hope he will respond to that because I think that is very important. If what is going on around this place is a simple matter of, "Who are the weaker people we can hit? Who are the people who caused us a little problem by parking their trucks around Queen's Park and drawing attention to what our government is not doing? Who are the people we can hurt?" -- I would hope that is not the attitude of the government.

Unless the parliamentary assistant has an answer for me as to what economic studies he has done to determine what impact this will have on the small, independent truckers of this province, the only conclusion I can draw and the only conclusion the people out there who are affected by it can draw, be they truckers, be they repairmen, be they people who service materials, be they families who are going to lose their homes, perhaps their livelihood and their jobs -- if the parliamentary assistant cannot answer that, he had better go out and get an answer from the minister very quickly, because the only conclusion I can come to and the people I have just addressed can come to is the fact that this is just a tax grab.

These are weak people. These are the people we can hit the same way we hit people with alcohol, with cigarettes. These people will pay. They smoke. They drink. They will pay that extra money. These people drive their trucks. They will pay extra. They will never know it. It is hidden at the pump. Under Bill 86, which we will soon be debating, the people go to the pumps. It is like a slot machine in Las Vegas.

Yet the Premier of this province told us -- you have to believe it if the Premier of this province says it -- during the election that he was going to set up a board that would monitor whether the oil companies were ripping the people off. What have we seen? Absolutely nothing.

An analogy that appeals to me is that it is like a slot machine. If you go around this city or this province you find everybody up on the ladder at exactly the same time changing the price, to increase it on Fridays and decrease it on Mondays. If that is the free market system working, great, but I happen to think that the people out there who are watching do not believe this is the free market principle. They believe the oil companies are out there trying to get what they can.

Where is the Premier with his great promise during the election? "We're going to set up a board. Damn it, we're going to get to the root of this and we're going to find out why the oil companies are changing their prices so dramatically." He has not done anything. He has not done one blinking thing. He sat there and allowed people who cannot even write off the cost of that gas -- they are not business people; they are people who want to travel from point A to point B. He has done nothing about it.

I find it interesting. I love to go around my riding and tally up what it costs at various gas pumps. I go around to those gas pumps, but travelling a bit further north and watching the prices up there -- I am a free enterpriser, but when I find that the gasoline in, let's say, North Bay or Sudbury is lower than it is in my good riding of Brampton South, I have to say to myself: "Economically, does that make sense? They have to transport the fuel further, so there should be a higher price." Is it a game of smoke and mirrors? We do not know. We have no way of knowing. But those guys of the government, their Premier, the guy --

[Applause]

Mr Callahan: They applaud for him. If he can produce three miracles, we will probably have him canonized. But in fact what he has done is promise the people of this province a board on the election trail. He is on the stump and he says to the people: "You vote for me and I'll set up a board that will in fact investigate whether you're being ripped off, you drivers, whether or not the pump prices are a ripoff by the oil companies." He has done nothing. In fact, I feel sorry for the Premier, because when he took his trip to Europe just recently, the government had to pay extra because of the fuel taxes that had been added by the budget.

1730

Look at the people who try to travel. We talk about tourism being a major industry in this province, and what do we do? We destroy it. What do we do for border cities? What do we do for Windsor, for the House leader's own riding, where jobs are disappearing left, right and centre because people cannot make a living because everybody is travelling across the border to shop in Buffalo and Detroit? Members have to ask themselves, why are they going? They are going because the cost of gasoline and the hidden, insidious tax these people are putting on are driving these people across the border. They are prepared to pay $3 to go through the tunnel to buy gasoline in the United States because it is about half the price it is here.

Where is this government that constantly says free trade and the GST are causing all the problems? I agree with them that some of those things probably have created economic problems for us, but those people are not helping the situation at all, believe me. They are not helping it by saying to an Ontario resident, "If you want to get gasoline, you've got to pay the price."

I think that in his or her own riding, every politician should have branded on his or her head the exact taxes we extract from the people of this province in terms of their gas so that every time we go into a gasoline station we are a billboard for exactly what we are doing to the people of this province.

At one time, I guess, in the good economic times of this province, it was all right to do that, because we did not have any tolls on our roads. People who came into this province were able to travel free, which is not the case in the United States. They were able to travel without paying exorbitant fees for our roads. Our roads were always in mint condition, so it was worth while. But today what have you got? Today they are all going in the opposite direction and they are driving over the potholes in the United States and they are filling the pockets of the United States because we are driving them away with the cost of our fuel.

There will come a point in time, and we are not far from it, when because of our cutbacks and transfers to our municipalities we will not be able to create the roads without potholes for people to travel on. We will have the same signs they have in the United States, "Adopt a Road." That is what they do, adopt a road. That is precisely what we will have to do, because we are driving the people out of this province -- driving them out rapidly.

I find it passing strange that people can sit here on a Thursday evening, most specifically -- and I have to go back to the Minister of the Environment, because no matter what happens economically, and it is very important to the people of this province, I think to the young people of this province, this country and this world, the environment is the most important issue to them.

The young pages who sit at your feet there, Mr Speaker, I think they know what it is all about. They do not want this environment polluted. They do not want people going around using leaded gasoline. They want people to use gasolines that are neutral, or as neutral as possible, until the automobile industry gets off its duff and decides to come up with what it probably could have come up with 20 years ago, a car that is environmentally neutral. We are sacrificing not just the economic freedom and the economic stability of the people who live here today, we are sacrificing the future of the young people who sit at your feet and we are sacrificing the future of their children.

I suggest that I find it passing strange that the Minister of the Environment, who is a key player in the cabinet, who is down there, I am sure, making policy in the back room along with the rest of the spin doctors and so on, cannot convince the member for Nickel Belt, the Treasurer of this province, through two arguments. The first one is, what about the people we represent, the people the New Democratic Party has always said it represents who are now perhaps at home having less for dinner, less accommodations, who do not have the ability to use programs or shelters being built for battered women and not able to provide for a health care system?

If they cannot think of it in those terms, they can think of it in terms of the young people of this province who are crying out to us: "Enough is enough. We are tired of what the adults of this world are doing to our environment. We want it changed." This may be a very small segment, but I think it is a signal that is sent out loud and strong to the young people of this province that we do not care: "We'll tax you. We'll add tax to your fuel to have you use a fuel that is perhaps more detrimental to the environment because we want the money. We want the money. We want the money because we want to do all these good things we say we're going to do."

I have sat here and listened to some of the measures of the government. Some of them are good and some of them are bad. The major concern I have is they seem to be directed towards a very singular group, as much as the Minister of Labour tries to profess they are not just labour-orientated. He says there is a partnership with business. He may believe that, others may believe that, but I am sorry, I cannot buy that. Even if I could buy it, the difficulty that exists is that every time a policy of this government is put forward as a trial balloon, the people who create the jobs in this province, the small businessman, the large businessman and so on, go absolutely wrangy.

There is a sound that reverberates through the small desk with papers on the little nail the independent businessman who is really just eking out a livelihood for himself and his family sits at. It reverberates through the modest desks of perhaps the medium-income type of business and certainly through the boardrooms of this country. We have seen it in terms of the stock market and what happens to it when there is some proclamation from this government that demonstrates business is no longer acceptable in this province. We hear it every time someone speaks in this House in terms of authority because he or she is in government. That has an impact.

We hear it as well in the press. The entire blame cannot be laid at the feet of the government. I will take on the press, too.

The press in this country and in this province have a great desire for using hyperbole in terms of the economic disaster we are facing and defending principles at times espoused by the government as not being all that terrible or supporting causes that perhaps are changing our entire environment, our entire province. I challenge them. They do not take up causes such as the fact -- I am going to get slightly off topic but I will get back to it -- there are schizophrenics who are not being serviced in this province. The only time the press gets excited about it is when the schizophrenic jumps off a bridge and kills himself or kills his family. That is big news for the press.

You do not see any here tonight. They have gone. They got their story. That is all they want. We feed off them; they feed off us. If that is a democratic process, if that makes sense, if that creates a safe and comfortable environment for the people of this province, there is something wrong. The press have the same responsibility we do as elected representatives. They have the obligation to be here and write about the tax. They have probably gone home. It is Thursday night. They have gone to write their stories. They got their quick fix, their quick story, and they are going to write it. They do not stay here for the important issues in this House. They get their quick fix and they leave.

1740

I know what I am saying is going to put me on the bad list of the press. So be it; I think that is great. But I challenge them to start demonstrating the obligation they have to the public in terms of reporting what really goes on in this House instead of just reporting the quick story and then they are gone, or the quick bite on television.

They should be here to look at what is being said about the impact of Bill 85. Do they not care about the truckers? They reported the truckers when they parked their trucks on Highway 401. That was big stuff, that was exciting, that was a big news item for them. But when it is being debated in the House, the economic impact of the increase in the diesel fuel to put these people out of business, where are they? They are not here. They do not care. It is not an important issue.

I am not going to castigate members for not being here. It is Thursday night. There are only so many who have to be here. Many members of the government and the opposition come from faraway ridings. Unlike any time in the history of this province, we are debating tonight that a 1.7-cents-a-litre increase twice on a trucker in this province could very well be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

It is not like the past when it was fat cat Ontario, where we could pass a tax and who cared? It did not matter; it did not have an impact. People still kept their homes, people still fed their children, people still were able to do other things -- but not today. Every three or four cents the government adds to the cost of doing business for a small business trucker in fact has doomed that trucker's family and himself to being on welfare or on unemployment. Members should think about that.

We casually pass pieces of legislation in this House, and I think part of the reason we casually pass them is because half of us do not know what the bills are all about. That is understandable when we have so many bills coming in all the time. That is one of the reasons this place needs reform.

I notice the former Minister of Energy is over there reading Designs. I hope it is an interesting newspaper. She is not even listening to the debate. She should be, if anybody is, very interested in this because she carried the responsibility in this vein.

If people came into this House and truly understood the process and what is going on and what their representatives -- who are not badly paid for the job -- are doing for their constituents, they would make the French Revolution look like a picnic. Maybe it is time the people of this province started to sit down -- I think they are looking at it. They see we are debating Bill 85, which is a tax measure. As I said, before it could have meant nothing in fat cat Ontario, but today three or four cents to the average Joe in this province means a great deal. It is something we should look at very carefully.

When we decide to spend X dollars for computer equipment that is not even taken out of the boxes by the government, the government defends it on the basis that every caucus gets a certain amount of money to deal with; this was raised by the member for Timiskaming. That is great. But take them out of the boxes, at least use them and at least use them to the benefit and the advantage of the people who paid for them.

I think it is time this Legislature reformed itself, started to recognize and take account of the fact that we are using tax dollars. We are using trust dollars. We are using dollars coming from people who are rich and poor. The rich perhaps can afford it. The poor certainly cannot, whom the members opposite claim to represent. What are they doing about it?

What is the government doing about the programs for rape victims, for women and children who are sexually abused? Where is the government going to get the money to do that?

Mr Johnson: Raising taxes on the fuel.

Mr Callahan: The parliamentary assistant says we are going to do it by raising taxes on fuel. If he thinks that is the way to do it, they could have had $500 million annually if they had not taken a blatant political promise not to put the GST on the PST. That was a great thing. The government stood here and thought, "We finally accomplished the first line of the Agenda for People and everybody is going to love us." Now here they are. They are going to nickel and dime the little people in an economy worse than it was when the government members stood up here with their roses on or whatever they had and said, "We're going to give up that $500 million because it is a good political promise."

The government had better think about it because I can say that the people in this province and the people in this Legislature, the people who have their heads screwed on properly, are going to be looking at it and saying, "We want programs that make sense."

I do not say this in a pejorative fashion to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I asked him and the Premier and I hope this is something that is going to be looked at by the minister: Young people who have learning disabilities cannot get back into a university until two years have passed if they flunk out. That is a rule that makes sense in terms of kids who have screwed around; that space should be made available for another child who wants that space. But we should clear the path totally for kids with learning disabilities and let them get back into the university immediately. We should encourage them in every way possible.

The Deputy Speaker: Please come back to Bill 85.

Mr Callahan: If they do not, then they need the taxes from Bill 85 to pay for the correctional systems, for the welfare and for the drug treatment and alcohol clinics these children will wind up in because they have been forced through a system by the Hall-Dennis report, which was a totally idiotic approach to education in this province.

Where was it that Eddie Shack said, "If you count the pennies" -- something about the dollars will follow. I think that is what this government has to understand.

Interjection.

Mr Callahan: If Eddie did not say it, I said it. I think that is the approach we have to take. In the final analysis, I have never seen tax bills really debated. As I said before, that may have been a reasonable approach to take in the past because we were a wealthy province. We had the ability to be able to fund our programs. We had a plan.

I sit here day after day and I have to say I get more depressed every day I sit in this House. I watch the lunacy. The process makes no sense. It has absolutely no involvement of each and every member of this Legislature. It adds cost to it. If the government had meaningful debate in its committees by the people who know the bill best, it would not have to spend the dollars in terms of debating it in this place, where there is a lot more expenditure.

I mean that on all sorts of areas. We seem to think nobody bothers to look at it. I think the Provincial Auditor is a fine man. He investigates the expenditures of everybody except us. I chair the standing committee on public accounts and I think one of these days perhaps we should do that.

Mr Cousens: You're an excellent Chairman too; outstanding.

Mr Callahan: Thank you very much. I think we should perhaps take a look at that. Let the people out there who voted for us make their own appraisal of whether we are overpaid or underpaid in terms of what we do for them every day in this House or in committee.

I do not see how we can just let this slide through and say to the truckers of Ontario: "Sorry, we don't want your business. We don't want your contribution to society. You can go on welfare or on unemployment and lose your truck. If you're complaining about your ability to compete with the United States, it's not our fault. It's the fault of the federal government in terms of GST and free trade."

I do not know. That answer was probably a good one before we started to see the cross-border shopping, when we recognized that in fact the magnet was drawing them across the border simply because of the low cost. There is no question that this is a made-in-Ontario recession.

I have a note here saying that during the truckers' blockade, the Treasurer was quoted as acknowledging that the industry wants the diesel tax put on hold. The Treasurer acknowledged that, so he has admitted this is a made-by-the-NDP crisis. That was the trucking crisis. What has he done about it? The bill is still here. He promised them nothing. Maybe they will be back tomorrow morning with their trucks. That might be a good idea. If they come back tomorrow morning or before we pass this bill and re-emphasize the fact that they are fed up, that they have had enough and that they are not about to allow us to get away with this, maybe we will sit up and take notice.

I would like to know what measures the minister or the government has initiated to offset the impact of the diesel tax increase. I throw that out to the parliamentary assistant too, in questions and comments on my speech.

1750

Mr Johnson: We haven't had a chance to respond.

Mr Callahan: I will give the member a chance, and I hope he has an answer, because if he does not have an answer, it means the NDP government of Ontario does not have any measures to offset the impact of this diesel tax grab on the truckers and small businessmen of this province.

I asked the parliamentary assistant about studies. I hope he will respond to that. I would also like to know, because it is really important, if the minister or her parliamentary assistant can provide information as to how many more small and large trucking firms can be expected to go bankrupt because of this tax increase. Has there been any study done? Has there been any concern about it? Or is bankruptcy the new name of what the government does these days? Perhaps it is big business these days, I do not know. Bankruptcies without a doubt have increased tremendously, and it has been echoed by many members in this chamber that they have increased significantly.

We have about 10 minutes left. I would like to hear the comments from other members of the chamber. Most specifically, I am very interested in the questions that I am going to reiterate so the parliamentary assistant, who is occupied in conversation right now, will be able to answer them. If he does not answer them, then I will leave the rhetorical answer to the public.

First, does the government have any studies in terms of what this diesel fuel tax increase will do to the trucking industry in this province? If he has no answer to that question, could the minister provide information as to how many more small and large trucking firms can be expected to go bankrupt because of this tax increase? If he does not answer that one, I have to believe there are no plans and no studies. There are three questions; it is three-question time. Third, what new measures has the minister or the government initiated to offset the impact of the diesel tax increase?

I thank my colleagues in the House. I have said my piece. Perhaps some people will say amen. But I want an answer, and I think the people of Ontario demand and are entitled to an answer to the three questions.

Hon Mrs Coppen: Can they phone in?

Mr Callahan: Sure they can phone in. What is the parliamentary assistant's telephone number? We will put it up tomorrow on a card so they can call him and the minister. That was the whip of the government caucus saying, "Can they call in?" Of course they can call in. This is a democratic chamber.

Hon Mrs Coppen: The number is 325-1900.

Mr Callahan: Is it really 325-1900? I will have to check before I accept that. I am sorry about that.

Finally, I just want to ask: Does the parliamentary assistant understand those three questions? Have you heard them or would you like me to repeat them? Should I repeat them once more for you?

Interjection.

Mr Callahan: I want to give him a fair chance.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Address the Chair.

Mr Callahan: Just one more time, because he was engaged in important conversation, I will give him those three questions again and I would like him to respond to them for the people of this province.

Has the Ministry of Revenue conducted any studies on the impact of the 1.7 cents per litre now and 1.7 cents per litre on January 1 on the trucking industry? That is number 1. Could the minister or his parliamentary assistant provide information as to how many more small or large trucking firms can be expected to go bankrupt because of this tax increase? That is number 2. Number 3, what new measures has the minister or the government initiated to offset the impact of the diesel tax increase?

I have said that three times. I am sure the parliamentary assistant, who is a bright person, has got those and will answer those. If he does not answer them, then I believe all of them are in the negative and he has no answer.

Mr Cousens: As I listened to the remarks of the honourable member, I thought his speech reminded me an awful lot of the antlers of a moose. The reason for that is there is a point here and a point there and a lot of bull in between. I just have to say that when we have the kind of presentation we just had from an honourable Liberal, the member for Brampton South, it leaves me wondering where he was during the Peterson years.

[Applause]

Mr Cousens: I thank the members. It is nice to see all the dippers applauding a Conservative.

The member was there when they came out with tax increases. They increased the Ontario provincial sales tax, they had the health tax and they had gas tax increases. Those guys had the halcyon days when there was more money rolling into Ontario. Part of the reason we are into this recession now is the lunacy of their policies, which these people are trying to implement, but the member comes along now and pontificates.

Hon Mr Cooke: You had us on your side there, Don.

Mr Cousens: I know. I just lost the New Democrats.

The member comes along and pontificates as if he had nothing to do with the sins of the present. The fact of the matter is the four or five years of their reign under David Peterson, the late David Peterson, are part of the problem we have today, but I did not hear the member bringing that up in his presentation.

I realize we have a problem and I think the member addressed that rather well. He could have been a little more articulate. The New Democrats are making a mess of things and I do not think he said that enough. He could have at least highlighted the way they are spending money in their cabinet and their offices, with extra staff and extra levels of assistant deputy ministers. I do not know why the member did not bring out some of the excesses the New Democrats are having.

They are doing a dreadful job of managing the economy. Their confidence is disappearing. What this government should do, and I wish the member had highlighted this, is cut back on the cost of gasoline taxes. That is what he should have been saying and he did not say it.

Mr Johnson: I do not know where to begin to answer these three questions in two short minutes. I will try but I may not get through.

What economic impact studies have been done by the Ministry of Revenue? None, I will tell the member for Brampton South quite frankly, but the Ministry of Treasury and Economics certainly and obviously takes into consideration all the implications of any taxes or budgets it is going to bring about in the province. Let's make that perfectly clear.

We cannot tax the American truckers, but let me tell the member that when I am going home to my riding tonight, I will pass more American than Canadian truckers on the highway. Is it not good that we are able to levy this tax against the fuel they use while they are in this province? That brings in some revenue from them that we do not get. We cannot tax them, but they certainly bring a lot of money into this province by driving back and forth in Ontario and paying their fair share of tax on fuel.

What number of small and large trucking firms can be expected to go bankrupt? That is a very difficult one to analyse. Certainly there are many factors and variables that would lead to the bankruptcy of any company, and I do not know that this additional tax would ultimately be the reason for that.

I would like to say to the member that Deloitte and Touche did a study for the Ministry of Transportation. I quote from their study: "With respect to taxes, the Ontario-based carriers appear to be at a marginal advantage over their American counterparts when all major federal and state/provincial taxes are considered." I will conclude with that.

Mr Stockwell: To comment on the comments made by the Liberal, the responses also seem to be bordering on the insane. Here we have a government suggesting it is really a good idea to raise gas taxes, because what we will do is raise taxes for the American truckers who are coming in here delivering stuff. We will charge them more money and thereby create more revenue.

The government members should get a grip. That is so hopeless. It is so fraught with pitfalls. They should think about it: The reason for raising a tax on gas is to get the Americans. Somebody needs to explain something to this government. When it is raising taxes on gasoline specifically, truckers in Ontario are going to pay the bulk of those costs, because, believe it or not, most of the trucks that operate in Ontario are Ontarian. Crazy as it sounds, that is just the way it is. I think that is a bold assumption that I will make right here today.

The next one is, this tax is not going to drive anyone out of business. Nobody has ever suggested one tax or one increase is going to close operations. The problem is that it is a number of successive taxes that continually oppresses the private operator. He is thinking about taxes on gas, on his tires, on his truck. All these taxes that have been created by many levels of government cause him to be uncompetitive, so no one tax ever drives anyone out of business. Cumulatively they make him uncompetitive.

Last, members should never use that argument of, "Let's get the Americans; we'll raise their gas taxes." They will laugh you out of town.

Mr Mills: In the two minutes that I have to respond to the member for Brampton South I want to say I found it rather amusing, Mr Speaker, that the member for Essex South, who was the last Minister of Revenue in the late Liberal government, was hiding behind that post just down there to your left. When the member from Brampton South started to speak I saw his head poke around the post as though he was going to come into the chamber. Then he thought better of it and he vanished and I have not seen him since.

I do not blame him, because here we have the member for Brampton South, in his self-righteousness, talking about reducing taxes when we all know his party, in its short time, increased taxes about 32 times. There are about 400,000 people who watch the proceedings in the House, I am told by the research people. They turn on the channel and they stay with it for about four to five minutes. I am sure that this afternoon, as they watched the member for Brampton South, they must have thought they tuned into the comedy hour, because I have never in my life heard such a bunch of claptrap about taxes since I have been here.

He and the member for Etobicoke West can smile. They are the masters of tax increases, because when they were in government they put the diesel taxes up not once or twice, but every three months for the whole time they were in. They socked it to the people of Ontario. They put the taxes up every three months the whole time they were in, and that accounts for why that party is so diminished and why so many of them have been slung out. The people could not take it. They remember it and these members will never get re-elected. The people will remember this lot too.

Mr Callahan: It is obvious from the response that we have gotten that I have hit a chord, both in the government and in the third party, and for that I apologize. They seem to be upset. But I think, in reiterating matters, there is no question that our government raised taxes. If you look at my record in the House, I think you would be surprised that sometimes I spoke against them; very often I spoke against them. But we did that at a time when, as was acknowledged, the economy of Ontario was in a good state. That is not the situation now, and that is the point I am trying to make.

I want to leave members with this thought: Some 228,000 workers are directly employed. That does not count the indirectly employed people. That is 5% of the provincial labour force. Truck transportation is responsible for over 70% of our trade with the United States. The increase the government is imposing represents a 30% total increase in fuel taxes for both railway locomotive and other diesel fuels. Finally, the NDP move to increase diesel fuel taxes is another example of the catch-22 the NDP finds itself in with its anti-business policies. Their mismanagement of the economy leads to unemployment and plant closures and lowers the government's revenues. Then they try to raise more revenue by increasing taxes, which forces more businesses to close, increases unemployment again and leaves them with a further revenue shortfall. This is a vicious circle of high taxes leading to higher taxes.

What the government is doing is chasing its own tail. With all the things I have just suggested, they are forcing businesses to close. They are trying to buttress it through wacko economic policies and they have to increase taxes to support them.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Mr Cooke: Pursuant to standing order 53, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, December 2, we will conclude the adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 85, the Fuel Tax Amendment Act, and begin second reading of Bill 86, the Gasoline Tax Amendment Act.

On Tuesday, December 3, we will deal with the opposition motion standing in the name of Mr Harris.

On Wednesday, December 4, we will give second reading to Bill 144, An Act to amend certain Acts administered by the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and Bill 158, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act with respect to the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Sector of the Construction Industry, followed by Bill 86, the Gasoline Tax Amendment Act.

On Thursday, December 5, in the morning, we will deal with private members' business: ballot item 49, standing in the name of Mr Christopherson, and ballot item 50, standing in the name of Mr Sorbara.

In the afternoon, we will call second reading of Bill 123, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act; Bill 151, An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act and the Municipal Act; Bill 150, An Act to provide for the Creation and Registration of Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations to Invest in Eligible Ontario Businesses and to make certain other amendments, and Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

The House adjourned at 1807.